[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 31 KB, 364x500, 41lZ0jD683L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16883257 No.16883257 [Reply] [Original]

Why does it work in theory but not in reality?

>> No.16883286

>>16883257
it does work

>> No.16883410

>>16883257
It doesn't even work in theory

>> No.16883411

>>16883410
This

>> No.16883459

>>16883257
Capitalism is unimaginably powerful and greed is subversive to Marxism

>> No.16883465

>>16883257
capitalism is human nature

>> No.16883472

Just because Marx got the criticism wrong doesn't mean that there is no criticism of capitalism.

>> No.16883516

>>16883472
he got the criticism correctly, it's the solution that's wrong.

>> No.16883519

>>16883465
Is this the most cringe thing man can utter?

>> No.16883525

>>16883516
What was his solution? I agree that his criticism was by far the most correct.

>> No.16883618

>>16883257
The real answer is that most states recognized that proletarian revolution was likely inevitable and took steps to ameliorate the problem, embracing contractualism and negotiating compacts between labor and capital instead of allowing the mechanistic forces underlying their dynamic to produce conflict. Wherever Marxists actually seized power, their revolutions were led by professionals and not workers, degenerated into sclerotic bureaucracies and state socialism, and produced nomenklatura only concerned with maintaining power.

>> No.16883646

>>16883286
found the pseud
>>16883410
found the high iq aryan

>> No.16883665 [DELETED] 

>>16883257
China lifted many millions out of poverty at a rate that was never seen before.

>> No.16883690

Capital doesn’t offer any solutions to capitalism. It just explains how capitalism works.

I wouldn’t hate that there is 5 Marx threads a day if they weren’t all started by people who haven’t read a single page of Capital. Can people please stop Marx posting?

>> No.16883805

>>16883519
let me rephrase it for you: human beings are inherently evil

>> No.16884053

>>16883646
High IQ. Aryan. These are contradictions in todays world.

>> No.16884058

>>16884053
yo yev

>> No.16884069

>>16883618
This. It's all a psyop. "Private" media is propaganda that serves the state, sometimes without even trying. Capitalism as it exists is designed to protect it's own interests.

>> No.16884088

>>16883257

Communism removes "price", which is the powerful invisible hand of Capitalism which dictates how much of a good should be produced. Without a price point, centralized economics results in massive overproduction and underproduction. Hence the endless lines of people waiting for bread or shoes and more often than not starving to death.

The greatest famines in history were caused by Communist economics destroying "price".

All "Communist" countries have black markets providing the goods and services people need. Communism cannot work without "price".

Also, Communism is theft and it always fails when it runs out of other people's shit to steal - everyone starves to death.

>> No.16884228

>>16884088
Was this meant to be funny? If so you have a real knack for silly prose. Maybe write dome childrens dtories desu

>> No.16884324

>>16883465
Tribalism is human nature... muh farming is human nature... muh monarchy is human nature.. muh feudalism is human nature... muh capitalism is human nature.

It all leads to communism. It is our destination.

>> No.16884401

>>16884324
>linear history
>"progress"

>> No.16884430

>>16883257
Because people do not in fact experience a material world.

>> No.16884496

>>16884430
Damn. This year has proven this shit hard. People live in their own seperate false realities and the kicker is. Its designed to be that way. It can't continue, this stratifying of American public will end in bloodshed or Chinese rule.

>> No.16884502

>>16883257
Work requires incentive

>> No.16884508

>>16884088
very true

>> No.16884514

>>16884053
good goy, uhhh i mean boy, good boy

>> No.16884520

>>16883519
Literally read Moby Dick. People are not good on the inside

>> No.16884535

>>16883257
It's a pipe dream, it's one man's utopian vision for a better future in which whatever work one person does has a deep value, and where every worker reaps a fair share in some vague futuristic society. It should be branded, properly, as fiction and placed in the fiction section of the bookstore.

>> No.16884536

>>16884520
This isn't an ultimate truth. Many people are genuinely good. Humanity isn't a monolith and society shapes alot of human behavior.

>> No.16884538

>>16884324
>muh dialectical materialism

>> No.16884543

>>16884535
Noooo. You can't keep the full value ofcwhat you produce. If you do then you have to hire 1000 people that don't.

>> No.16884544

>>16883257
It doesn't work in theory but it works in reality

>> No.16884545

>>16884502
And your incentive is a stronger community

>> No.16884554

>>16884502
Yes incentive. Like you know....keeping the majority of the profit your labor helped produce. Lmao

>> No.16884558

>>16884228
no rebuttal, like every single marxist

>> No.16884560

>>16884536
Humans have to be pretty shit if muh society is shit, wtf else is it composed of?

>> No.16884562

>>16884496
The entire project of the religions that survived in to the modern era was to seek to separate man from his material reality because he is in fact not adapted to exist within it. Religion separates us from the Real by aligning our Symbolic Orders as a society, without it each man must survive as he can. Some will succeed and others will fail, but no one truly inhabits the Real. Dialectical materialism is flawed because "material needs" are not as objective as marxists insist. That man in the gutter destroying his liver with his last few dollars worth of cheap bourbon instead of buying his first meal for the day has a demonstrably different understanding of what his material needs are than you do. Who has the right to determine for him that food is more important than his bourbon? History is a series of conjectures based on biased guesses by (often, we hope) well intentioned scholars, no conjecture about the man in the gutter's material needs can be drawn from it, and any attempt to "correct" his view is merely enforcing one's own Ideology upon him in an attempt to make the world make sense, because the fact that it doesn't is traumatic.

If Marx really cared about people he'd have become a preacher.

>> No.16884577

>>16884543
Of course not. But the work you or I do doesn't have any magical intrinsic value. Just because we work hard or slack off doesn't say anything about out value. It's all about how valuable the work you did is. So work hard at something that's sensible, not just digging a garden for some hippie commune. And yes, it is unfair. it's completely unfair!

>> No.16884586

>>16884536
When you say people are genuinely good, you're pretty much just leaning on a fantasy about some kind of objective goodness. It's why Marxism gets compared to Christian faith even though they are antithetical; they both rely on a profound lie

>> No.16884594

>>16884586
There is objective good. What's good is what's good for me.

>> No.16884614

>>16884562
You have a point here - although it's a mistake to say that any individual is aware of their material needs, or those of anyone else.

>> No.16884629

>>16884614
>although it's a mistake to say that any individual is aware of their material needs
Yes, sorry, that's one of the points I was trying to ramble out. I do realise I skirted around actually saying that though.

>> No.16884636

>>16884586
I'm not leaning on objective good. Imesaying there are people who are good relative to our definition of good. JFC
>>16884558
It was an honest question.
>>16884560
Yep, yet look how far we've come.
>>16884562
These are valid criticisms. We can't discount material realities just becauss they're subjective though. The material reality that is presumed to be true by Marx is that the working class is working and not receiving a fair share of the benefit or the control of society. Even if that's not purely objective, it is still largely true for the majority of folks on this planet. Everyones reality is different based on perception, that doesnt mean we shouldn't try to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
>>16884577
Yeah, this is a tired argument. This argument ironically comes from Marx in vol.3 chapter 1 of Capital. He says that performing labor that doesnt create a product that society deems valuable or necessary does not have value.
>>16884614
He made an extremely valid point. But every form of government attempts to prescribe what best suits the closest observable material reality. Liberal Capitalism does it with Media Control and via the "free" market.
Marxism does through scientific observation.

>> No.16884677

>>16884636
Well I'm not clear on "our" definition of good then I guess, because the more I personally dig into the idea of good the more I'm led into Christian philosophy which has dominated.
>>16884594
Well, that's fine. I have this big suspicion that the Marxist thing is really a veiled egoism. They think they know what's best for everyone else. Which is fine. But put yourself on the same level as a religion in that case. and religion can be equated with fiction, as many have claimed

>> No.16884688

>>16884636
>This argument ironically comes from Marx in vol.3 chapter 1 of Capital. He says that performing labor that doesnt create a product that society deems valuable or necessary does not have value.
Products have value. don't you agree? why do you care about the labour that went into your Samsung or Apple smartphone. You care about the finished product and how it performs, and you will pay the price the market decides between the two. With cost of labour as only one factor in that price

>> No.16884718

>>16884636
> It was an honest question.

Which is why I didn't respond. You're too short for this ride.

>> No.16884726

>>16884677
There are shared values outside of religion that people agree are good. People generally agree that showing kindness to others is good. People generally believe that bit murdering people is good. I mean you obviously know the list goes on. Maybe it isn't as objective as you'd like, but reality is often loose and vague. Egoism was detested by Marx, if you engaged with the literature it would probably sharpen your arguments. I'm not some dogmatic ideologue though, I just quite prefer Marxs social philosophy to Liberal Capitalisms social philosophy, I could have it completely wrong, but I engage with many other ideologies and worldviews, and I change and hone my values and beliefs as philosophy has taught me, and to the best of my ability while working and raising a family.
I like very much that you're thinking and engaging with these conversations though.
>>16884688
I care a great deal about the labor that went into creating all consumer goods. I have a fairphone because their cobalt doesnt come from the fuck awful mines in the Congo where children as young as 6 die to help Apple make identical phones yeat after year at an ever inflating cost, just so we can sit around and lazily brainwash ourselves.

When I work, I certainly value my labor. Without my labor, I would have no income. On that basis I extend the courtesy I give myself to the others I interact with. I value the labor of others, it's the only thing holding society together. Hey, but maybe read some Marx. Not the entire canon, its long and dense, maybe the Marx-Engels reader or for a modern approach, Dr. Richard Wolf. It could help you understand what you're argueing against better, if you want to.

>> No.16884801

>>16884726
We agree on the value of education, oh gosh yes. And I've read quite a lot compared to most people my age. But like, even if you buy a fair cellphone I bet your laptop is etc..... etc.... And Marx may very well have claimed to ahte egoism,but the whole point of egoism is that you are the greatest egoist, beyond contempt and also beyond the ability of others to put you down. That's why I love Nietzsche he embraced that so deeply and took the idea of being an egoist as his diving board

>> No.16884828

>>16884726
>Without my labor, I would have no income. On that basis I extend the courtesy I give myself to the others I interact with. We can value everyone's contribution, I think, while saying Without the Value you create by your hard work you would have no income. I'm sorry, it's true and not just a quibble. You could work less and make more. You could work way fricking harder and make less.

ultimately everyone who works an honest 40 hours should have basic social guarantees, in my society. Like healthcare and education for your kids and stuff. But people who make more have to be taxed to pay for it

>> No.16884860

>>16884535
did you even read a summary of Capital? It describes how Capitalism works, you dunderhead. Give it a try https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1

>> No.16884893

>>16884860
Did you even read Smith, Ricardo, Keynes and so on?

>> No.16884895

>>16884801
Yeah, I love Nietsche as well, I like Max Stirner too, THE egoist. You're right about consumer goods espescially in America. Most Anarchists and Communists will say there is no ethical consumption under capitalism because a worker was paid less than what his labor produced. Which is true, but not a complete analysis, and is really more of a cope for them to justify buying shitty consumer goods. This is basically why I finalky read Marx. I had all of the canned responses from the internet, and they weren't even my thoughts, I argued against it even though I knew nothing in some kind of narcissistic self-aggrandizing manner, eventually though, I startes examining many of my beliefs and started looking into it further. I was kinda floored when I actually started reading it, it was nothing like the common attacks were claiming. It isn't infallible or ultimate, but it's much more human than what we have now, also I still have a ton to learn, I'm not rigid until I have to be.
>>16884828
Yeah, I can get behind that, taxation isn't bad neccesarily, American tax system is purposefully confusing and if you add up our individual little taxes we pay the same amount as other countries, the difference is they actually see the benefit of their contributions. We just get shit on and told to file bankruptcy. Its immoral. I work in healthcare and have watched people die waiting to get on disability or medicaid because they couldnt afford insulin. These people were born poor and unhealthy, it wasn't a personal choice.

>> No.16884900

>>16884324
You should be strapped for not realizing the deep irony of this comment

>> No.16884911

>>16884893
Marx covers Smith and Ricardo pretty well. In fact, it's where he gets the labor theory of value which was invented by Smith and adopted by Ricardo.

>> No.16884943

>>16884895
Honestly, you may have inspired me to read Marx more seriously.

>> No.16884949

>>16884911
so why aint my labor have value cuh?

>> No.16884968

>>16884088
"Price" is one mechanism of information exchange, but it has its limits and is rather crude by today's standard. Nowadays huge capitalist companies do rather developed economic planning, see "The People's Republic of Walmart" for more info. The communication and computation technology to plan advanced economies has existed since the early 90s - I recommend "Towards A New Socialism" by Cockshott and Cottrell which describes one such system. In this system, information about consumption is used as an input to determine how much to produce, but is more sophisticated than traditional pricing. Labor time credits are used instead of a circulating currency, and scarcity is carefully managed. http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

Btw, the famous famines happened in poor agrarian countries which historically always had famines. Through intensive development and industrialization of the economy, famines soon became a thing of the past. Not to say the USSR didn't make serious mistakes, because of course they did. But we have to keep in mind they were basically as developed as Brazil was in 1917, and somehow managed to become a world superpower capable of sending men to space.

>> No.16885015
File: 27 KB, 600x338, images (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16885015

>>16884949
>how come he don't want me (labour), man?

>> No.16885038

>>16885015
(for the sake of this post I'm assuming your unemployed)
There needs to be a significant number unemployed for Capital to work most profitably.It puts a downward pressure on wages. If you have a job, it is always tenuous because you could easily be replaced by one of the thousands desperate to get gainful employment.

>> No.16885053

>>16885015
*hugs you*

>> No.16885056

>>16885038
Huh? Im just shitposting based off the other post.

>> No.16885059

>>16885053
are you labour? cos you have value!

>> No.16885096

>>16883257
>Critique
A critique is not a praxis. It is a description and assessment of the mechanisms and flaws capitalism. The flaw with Marxism is not in the critique, but in the assumption that by negating capitalism you would somehow get a better society spontaneously materialize.
What happened in the post-revolutionary countries like Russia and China is many unforeseen consequences sprang up which the critique, being a critique, could not have anticipated. Suddenly, by destroying it, all the work capitalism did maintaining the order of society was replaced with a vacuum that could at that point only be filled by the sure hand and iron fist of dictatorship.

>> No.16885145

I'm sorry I was rude

>> No.16885198

>>16883257
As poorfag, it is imperative that it works. If not, my daddy has betrayed me.

>> No.16885273

>>16884900
He didn’t say final destination

>> No.16885278

>>16883465
Humanity was created in the 18th century?

>> No.16886532

It doesn’t work in theory you faggot

>> No.16886926

>>16883257
Because there's nothing proscriptive in the book? It's just a critique.

>> No.16886941

>>16883465
And if you lived in a mining town, we'd forgive you for thinking that black lung was inherent to the human condition

>> No.16887207

>>16884895
>because a worker was paid less than what his labor produced. Which is true

Why? Under the assumptions of classic econ., i.e. given a free market in perfect competition, a worker is paid exactly the value of his work.
The Marxist conclusion is based on a subjective, objectively incorrect, conception of value. Value in Marxist theory is derived from labor, but it is patently obvious, especially in contemporary society, that value is not drived from labor. The objective theory of value, the one used in classical economics, derives the concept of value from revealed preference, i.e. *value is what humans ascribe value to, nothing more and nothing less*.

>> No.16887330

>>16887207
>Why?
When you are hired, you are told what your wages will be. No matter how well you negotiate, you will never be paid as much as you produce. Your labor creates value, because without your labor, no product is made.
>*value is what humans ascribe value to, nothing more and nothing less*
Sure, which is how Marx says we determine the value of products. Humans ascribe value to labor also though, hence hetting a paycheck for performing it.

>> No.16887351

>>16883465
Human nature doesn't real

>> No.16887352

>>16886926
Yes. People don't seem to understand that the main premise of Marxism is that the workers should by whatever means, receive the tools of production, and then work together to decide what type of government and system of organization will work best for them, rather than leaving that decision to the corporate elite and the politicians and laws they purchase.

>> No.16887411

>>16887330

> No matter how well you negotiate, you will never be paid as much as you produce

You will be paid proportionate to the value you produce.

>Your labor creates value, because without your labor, no product is made

Without a machine, the value of your labor is worth next to nothing. Value is clearly not a function of just labor.

Without raw materials, no product is made either. Without food, you cannot do any work, therefore all value is derived from food. This is not far from the ideas of the physiocrats, and like the value theory of labor, it is a fallacy.

>Sure, which is how Marx says we determine the value of products. Humans ascribe value to labor also though, hence hetting a paycheck for performing it.

That's not what Marx said. He didn't say "people get a paycheck because others value their labor", he said that the objective value of things is derived from labour, which is nonsense. There is no objective value in things beside what people ascribe to it. Marx was a cryptochristian, in his understanding of humans as tabula rasa and in his religious belief in objective values outside human preferences.

>> No.16887439

>>16887352
Who are "the workers"? His conception of class, and predictions for the development of social stratification, has little to no resemblance to how society actually turned out. There's huge stratification in society stemming from human instead of physical capital, major diversification in ownership of physical capital, and for decades a shrinking portion of society involved in manual manufacturing.

>> No.16887466

>>16884968
>ummm actually command economies work because private enterpises that exist within the so-called free market are organized top down
do commies actually buy this shit lmaooo

>> No.16887497

>>16884554
employees get an actual salary, though. which is more than commie factories would offer them.

>> No.16887522

>>16887411
>You will be paid proportionate to the value you produce.
That's extremely far from true in most capitalist enterprises.
>Without a machine...
Yes, all of this is true, but these machines and materials do nothing until a worker uses his labor. And just for a moment, I don't champion Marxs LTOV, there are problems with it, but classical and contemporary economists are no closer to adequately explaining capitalists profits. Still, workers should enjoy a significant portion of what their labor produces. Today, that isn't true for the majority of workers, wages have completely stagnated, yet Capitalist profits are higher than ever.

>There is no objective value in things
I can also agree with this to an extent. This is basically only 1 aspect of Marxism though, and if you follow the tradition to modern times their have been answers provided. Like Pikettys Capital in The 21st Century
>>16887439
The workers are those who work. Society is much different. Workers are still getting shit on though, it doesnt need to be more complicated than if you work for a living you belong to the working class.
>>16887497
They lived well in many cases under communism. Cuba for instance has among thr highest social mobility in the world, with farmers sons becoming doctors and scientists. Salaries were still paid in Soviet Russia, but they barely spent it because their needs were met by their own contributions.

>> No.16887543

>>16887466
Private enterprises are organized from the top-down. Corporations have boards of directors(shareholders) who have infinite times more power over company decisions than the workers, despite never having stepped foot in their factory.

>> No.16887574

>>16887543
Yes but companies operate (it is hoped) in a competitive market. So the top down control they have is nowhere near as absolute. Companies essentially only control the quantity they can produce, with the inputs and price decided externally. For any given good, a command economy can set both prices and input prices, which is a completely different level of control over production.

If a worker controlled factory becomes a monopoly, it’s still going to operate as such, maximizing profits at the expense of efficient production. The issue is the monopolization of the entire market, i.e. nation, rather than the organization of each firm itself

>> No.16887578

>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.
We all know you have nothing better to do with your sad, pathetic life, but how many Capital shit-threads do you need to spam every day?

>> No.16887587

>>16887439
Anyone who sells their time/life for money, pretty much.

>> No.16887618

>>16887522
I don’t much like the view that the labour is the driver of production. George uses this an an axiom, but there are many issues with it. Namely, if you take any consumer good of the modern world, no labourer is going to be able to assemble this good with no capital. Sure, the steel roller is going to just sit there without labour, but if you take a random labourer and plot him down in a field somewhere, he’s not just going to magic rolled steel out of thin air. For any realistic timescale, capital is just as necessary for production, and this is not to speak at all of automation. We can think of capital as secondary, and it is, but this is like saying that water is higher up on maslows hierarchy than food: there are limited situations where this ranking matters, and when it does we’re in deeper shit.

>> No.16887644
File: 130 KB, 640x820, soc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16887644

>> No.16887693

>>16887618
Yeah, I can agree with that. Thomas Pikketys Capital some interesting ideas for the modern world.
>>16887644
This is how we explain away political failires of any system, in reality its vastky more complicated but humans are dum dums and deal in binaries and absolutes.
>>16887574
I agree, I don't like authoritarian communism, I just like to be open minded about them. Worker co-ops can and do already exist and quite often outperform capitalist ones while keeping their workers extremely well compensated.

>> No.16887775

>>16887587
>>16887522

It should be clear to you that a doctor earning a million USD a year does not have the same economic interest as a nonskilled laborer earning 20k or whatever they earn. The Marxist conception of class relies on converge in economic fortunes between two classes, but in reality the stratification of society is highly complex with no clear pattern related to class. As I mentioned, ownership over capital is also much more diversed due to stock companies that have many owners, some of the biggest owners are pension companies representing hundreds of thousands of "workers" - who also own capital. Furthermore, the evolving of the stock company also means the emergence of a new type of economic conflict between managers and owners, i.e. between CEOs - "workers" in your conception - and shareholders - evil capitalists in your conception. That is, you will have situations in which there is a fundamental conflict between a poor impoverished worker in the form of a CEO making millions of dollars a year on one side, and an evil capitalist owner owning 1/100.000 of the company, who is also a nurse earning 25k USD a year.

>> No.16887791

dont you faggots ever get tired of this crap

>> No.16887837
File: 75 KB, 563x432, elephant-graph.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16887837

>>16887522
>That's extremely far from true in most capitalist enterprises.

Now we're entering reality, not theory. The original claim was related to absolute statements on how workers NEVER are paid their share etc., i.e. commie nonsense. That actual outcomes diverge from perfect competition conditions is completely congruent with classic economic theory.

>Today, that isn't true for the majority of workers, wages have completely stagnated, yet Capitalist profits are higher than ever.

This is wholly dependent on what you mean by workers. Are you aware that globally, wages have not stagnated at all, but in fact a huge number of people have been lifted out of poverty over the past 5 decades? The phenomenom of stagnating wages is a phenomenom isolated to developed countries, and this stagnation is directly related to the growth in incomes in developing countries. Check the graph, it's from Branki Milanovic's "Global Inequality", a good book on global income growth over recent decades. That is not to say there is no problem, but it is worth taking such miraculous improvements in the lot of the poor when judging the overall effects of capitalism.

>> No.16887957

>>16884545
Fuck the community, what's in it for me? If you can't answer this you will fail. Communism relies on no one being a cunning sociopath when we all know that such people exist in every society. Marxism is too idealistic for the real world.

>> No.16887973

>>16884586
Christianity claims that humans are not inherently good i.e original sin. It has an entire system set up to receive forgiveness for your sins because it expects you to fail multiple times.

>> No.16887975

>>16885096
Bingo. This post is criminally underrated.

>> No.16887999

>>16887957
False. Communism in practice would strive for an application of Federal principles to the economy - create social incentives for manipulation which in turn benefit the public. Of course this too will ultimately fail, as everything does and will - in the long run we are all dead. The point of achieving this, however, is to create the best possible conditions for as many people as possible, not to create a foolproof system which will last forever.

>> No.16888052

>>16883257
It's the opposite, the theory is all wrong but the real experiences have been very successful, such as China

>> No.16888353

If communism can't work, why did americans send tens of thousands of american lives into the meat grinder of Vietnam to stop capitalism from spreading?

If communism can't work, why didn't we just sit back and let communism collapse on its own?

>> No.16888507

>>16888052
China isn't really communist since it's just the poor as slaves to the rich. Wasn't that the entire thing Marx was against?

>> No.16888530

>>16888353
Terrible bait.

>> No.16888690

>>16888507
They are as communist as you can be. You can't really be socialist or communist because Marx theory is wrong.

>> No.16888862

>>16883257
I want commies to just fuck over another country (preferably USA) already, call it not real gommunism after the fact and pipe down for another 15 years or so.

>> No.16888912

>>16888690
If that's the case then it's all just a lie. People join it because it promises to free them from hierarchy when it just makes an even stronger one. Wasting your life in a factory for communism instead of wasting your life in a factory for capitalism. At least capitalism is honest.

>> No.16888969

>>16887775
Doctors rarely make what you suggest. They stand to benefit from the full profit of their labor. It is highly complex, still the AVERAGE worker is being exploited for CEO and shareholder profit. Most huge companies are in fact owned by around 100 shareholders, there is hardly any meaningful diversity in the shareholder and ceo class. Pensions are worse for the average worker than they ever have been due to monopolization of shares and stocks. Just because some workers own a very minute amount of stock doesnt make them an "evil" capitalist. Further I never made a distinction between them, I just used shareholders in an example. You're argueing against a position that you assigned to me, not thebposition laid forth in Capital or my own position. You're kinda just masturbating some neoliberal economic stance.

>> No.16888983

its a pipe dream for secular jews who want to ruin the world. hence, why its never worked

>> No.16888992

Because it is a more than a century outdated theory shite.

>> No.16889055

>>16888912
>At least capitalism is honest.
How so

>> No.16889098

because vuvuzuela no food 100 million-billion-tradillion dead

>> No.16889111

>>16887837
You could attribute global growth to Neoliberal policy, but there are other factors still. Some of this growth in poor countries invited scarcity to create temporary growth(African farmers farming coffee and cocoa for money instead of sustenance farming has had a negative impact on diets and health.)

My largest problem with the famous elephant chart is that it relies heavily on decrease of poverty in China which introduces an incredible host of questions as to what actually caused the growth. I'm not nearly enough of an economist to counter Milanovic, but I do believe alot of this growth is artificial, like my Africa example. I have his book at home, but haven't read it yet(I have more books than time and it's hard to choose which I read next.

Underlying this entire conversation is a question. Is GDP and income really a good reflection of the overall health and happiness of a society? I don't necessarily think so.

>> No.16889116

>>16888983
Ah that makes sense. All ideology except yours is actually a jewish plot to destroy the world like some Marvel villain

>> No.16889119

>>16883257
Because humans aren't theoretical.

>> No.16889139

>>16889055
It openly claims to support greed and individual benefit and expects you to either play the game or lose. Maintain your wealth and power or claw your way to the top. Obviously its not that simple and this isn't ideal but the blatant exploitation is open and at least your congratulated if you manage to make it. Communism is the same thing but unless your one of "the boys" you'll be slaughtered if you dare push for upward mobility. Both are unfair in their pure form but at least one openly says it's about the individual instead of duping uneducated workers into thinking they are somehow benefiting.

>> No.16889210

>>16889139
I mean I guess. Its never that straightforward though and many that liced under communis. Seem to disagree with your assessment of it. Thats fine though.

>> No.16889258

>>16884968
Computational systems would only work if you pull every good down to it's lowest common denominator (ie. one type of chair, one type of tee shirt, etc) which kills individualism and free expression.

It is also very poor at future planning. It's easy to say what to produce of base essentials but what about emerging technologies. The beauty of innovation under capitalism is that mistakes can be ironed out through small groups adopting early. Under a socialist society how do you determine who should get the latest advancements without creating a new class? Public sector budgets just breed inefficiency.

The perfect example of this is the American healthcare system, absolutely state of the art, best in the world if you can afford it. The British were still using Windows XP up until a few years ago but it works and they can only provide a cheaper level of care because they get to buy in treatments after the early adopters (US) have proven efficacy and production has risen to an economic level.

Neither system is perfect which is why you need a balanced approach which is what has been evolving in North Europe for a long time.

>> No.16889296

>>16889258
I agree with some of this. Capitalist innovation is often subsidized by the state though, espescially healthcare and technology. When you describe innovation under capitalism as small groups slowly perfecting things. That's just what innovation does even outside of technical systems of thought or organization.
>Under a socialist society how do you determine who should get the latest advancements without creating a new class?
I'm not sure whats meant by this. I think the answer you may be looking for is that socialism provides funding and relief where it's mist needed to provide to those that most need it.

>> No.16889346

>>16889111
The reason GDP/income is a useful measure is because following your example with a little math. A farmer begins producing everything he needs for himself/his village. He decides to move to a more valuable crop such as coffee which nets him $1000/m but now he can purchase the food he previous grow for $500/m and be left over with profit which can then be reinvested in himself/his society.

Selected crop rearing in the most opportune environments will lead to better efficiencies and thus cheaper produce for the impoverish (and developed) man.

It's not a perfect system and creates a reliance on the global system which he didn't previously have but there are benefits.

>> No.16889393

>>16889346
In theory, look at what I refferedcto though, in reality it's created scarcity and food insecurity...but at least they have some paper now?

I mean maybe eventually they will be able to use that money to provide for them, but right now it's probably only providing for land owners and causing the rest to starve

>> No.16889432

>>16889296
I'm not taking about slowly perfecting things, I'm taking about huge sudden leaps in development. Let's take smart phones as an example of what I mean. Obviously the first few were bad which was realised through the early adopters. In a socialist society how do you decide who those first few thousand people are that get the new technology as there isn't a fair way without creating a new class. Randomised delivery also wouldn't work, you need nerds testing them not grandmas. This is a very big investment to learn that they are bad and it would take a couple years to move to the next one. We however got several models to choose from the go and eventually the original iPhone set the mould for us to continue past.

>Innovation is paid for by state
This works well until the state is wrong and there's no mechanism to go against it. Currently the 2 biggest economic powers in the world don't care about the environment. We may have never reached the level of green technology we currently have if people weren't allowed to fund their own interests (many of them unsuccessful).

>> No.16889453

>>16889432
The state already heavily subsidizes innovation though. Who cares who tests the first cell phones. I would suggest under socialism that they were tested by the workers who created them

Using capitalism as an example ofprotecting the environment seems extremely shortsighted and disingenous.

>> No.16889486

>>16888969
I'm definitely making an argument against Marx when I'm pointing out that his conception of class is nonsensical in modern society. I was just pointing out that you making the same distinction between those who work and those who own capital, does not hold up to scrutiny. The stratification in incomes between workers is enormeous, and many ownership over companis is diffused throughout society rathen than monolithic.

>> No.16889526

>>16889393
Scarcity is inherent in life when managing resources and there's no way to ever solve it (remember time is a resource).

It is not causing people to starve, it is preventing it. In the western developed countries starvation is now a myth and the poor have variety of nutritious foods available (even if they don't take them). It wasn't long ago that poor people in the US/UK used to literally only eat bread most days.

This is now happening in the developing world because money is just a medium of exchange. There's no way to be self sufficient in today's society unless you want to live a sheltered life so the more value you can create, the more you get back.

Do you think land owners were just giving food out for free before? No obviously, they go food in exchange for working the field. Now they get money to exchange for food but because it's a higher value the worker gets more. Also since the land owner gets more, he pays more taxes which goes to the state which supports the worker. Now the developed world is becoming more socially responsible and willing to pay more, the global corporations force the landowner to give fair wages (fair trade initiatives). This is literally how child labour has been massively reduced because of socially conscious 1st worlders, 3rd worlders don't give a shit about their kids working.

>> No.16889547

>>16883257
the fundamental problem is his defintion of the means of production.

the means of production is not machines, not technology, but people. people operrate and create machines, and the technologies.

even a fully robotic factory need maintenance, supplies, power and distribution to be effective.

and if people are the means of production, then owning them is slavery. which is exactly how comunism works in practice.

>> No.16889596

>>16889453
>The state already heavily subsidising innovation
Can you stop with your extremism, it's not one way or the other. Sometimes the state gets it right, sometimes they do. There needs to be a system that supports it when it doesn't.

>Who cares who tests the first phone
The people who created the first phones thought they were perfect and didn't understand true application. It took others to tell them they were wrong but why should they get all the phones when food producers have to share their produce? You've just created a 2 class system.

>Protecting the environment is shortsighted under capitalism
Multinationals trying to meet their quarterly profit margins is no different than a socialist society trying to meet their quality food production levels. Producing immediate necessities will always come before long term ecological goals.

Long term ecological goals can only come from a place of abundance which is why only 1st world people have the luxury of caring about it. There's a reason the most famous campaigner (Greta) is a millionaire and most of them are fairly wealthy because they don't have to worry about putting food on the table.

>> No.16889604

>>16889547
>if people are the means of production, then owning them is slavery
Based

>> No.16889671

>>16889111
I don't think your example is very telling. Firstly because subsistence farmers would be part of the poorest, who according to Milanovic have been locked out of income growth, so it
s not really about them. Secondly, because being able to trade your produce for currency is a prerequisite to have incentives to produce beyond sustenance, and therefore promoting efficient utilization of land. When produce can be sold for money, efficient farmers will start to outcompete inefficient farmers, accumulating capital and land, effectivizing production, and pushing other farmers into the city to become labor.

>> No.16889732

>>16885096
>but in the assumption that by negating capitalism you would somehow get a better society spontaneously materialize.
The Germans did it the right way in 1933.

>> No.16889751

This thread is so lowbrow and eye-opening about the intellectual level of /lit/

>> No.16889763

>>16889526
>>16889596
>>16889671
I disagree. We're essentially stuck in a repetitive loop of argument, and I dont exactly feel like continuing. Take that as you will, but I'm really just losing interest, and to debate honestly I would have to research some of your examples and put the effort towards am actual debate, that would require more time and effort on my part, maybe later. Otherwise I would just be trying to deconstruct the language you use and restate my views that money doesnt correlate to happier healthy people. I have enjoyef this though, and applaud you on your grasp of economics.

>> No.16889780

>>16889751
>I'm really smert gaiz

>> No.16889864

>>16889751
Why?

>> No.16890245

note how nobody ever qoutes Capital or anything else by Marx in these pathetic threads.

>> No.16890331

>>16889763
As I said to someone else in here, I think commies jump so quickly to the extreme poles of a debate. The market isn't inherently good or evil because the real world doesn't fit neatly into a theory. Extremes don't work, balance is always needed and the reason money doesn't perfectly correlate to happiness is because materialism is a flawed theory. Spirituality is also need.

>> No.16890386

>>16883410
based

>> No.16890553

>>16890331
So you see commies in the same way commies see markets. People do have spirituality, they worship mamon and his vestibule is the market. It didnt seem like you were argueing with some dogmatic ideologue who was thinking in binaries, why nit judge people on an individual basis, also Im pretty sure he stated above that he didnt even support authoritatian state Comminism which is what all pf your posts were about. Jesus, he was being charitable by even continuing the debate.

>> No.16890563

>>16890245
Someone quoted vol3 chapter one of Capital and you don't have autistically quote Marx to argue that Marxism is better than capitalism. No one quoted smith or mises or keynes or anyone else you pure imbecile.

>> No.16890818

>>16889486
Marx is pretty clear that classes present in society change over time, and are not fixed.