/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18540152]

When did /lit/ grow out of Marxism? 23 here; after reading Stirner and Taoist books, I realized that Marxism and politics/philosophy in general are complete waste of times.

[Anonymous No.18540163]

ive never in my life was or ever will be a Marxist. I love women.

[Anonymous No.18540168]

I grew into Marxism around the age of 22 after being an anarkiddie.

[Anonymous No.18540173]

when I got my first paycheck and became more rich than every Marxist on Earth.

[Anonymous No.18540403]

Was taught the basics of Marxism in high school. Knew it was bullshit right away

[Anonymous No.18540420]

>>18540152
The concept of SNLT is so fundamentally unmeasurable that to base your entire economic system off of it is not just retarded, but has proven destructive to every Communist government.
>inb4 modern China
China is state capitalism.

[Anonymous No.18540427]

Spooks and shit.

[Anonymous No.18540428]

>>18540152
Stirner kinda did it for me too. I still lean left in terms of having disdain for the bourgeoisie, but I don't think orthodox marxism has solutions.
>>18540173
Funnily enough, it was my first summer job that spurred me into leftism, they money meant nothing compared to how tiring it was.

[Anonymous No.18540457]

>>18540420
SNLT is difficult to measure but is a very necessary part of economics

[Anonymous No.18540621]

>>18540420
It’s a critique of capital not a fucking guide to communist relations. Jesus fuck cunt. Capital is a guide to shooting bosses not building homes.

[Anonymous No.18540667]

>>18540152
>heh I made myself the smart guy and everyone who disagrees with me the dumb guy
Bait aside Marxism is a useful for the frameworks it provides. I think its less "growing out" and more incorporating Marxists tools to your ideological toolbelt.

[Anonymous No.18540680]

>>18540457
No one's ever even tried to calculate it as a demonstration of Marx's theory. It has too many absurdities like how unworked land has a price but no value.

[Anonymous No.18540822]

>>18540621
based

[Anonymous No.18541314]

>>18540152
honestly it was reading Guenon that made me realize how foolish it all was

[Anonymous No.18541347]

>>18540152
Never a Marxist, but reading Marxian historians (Hobsbawm particularly) helped me clarify positions I intuitively disdained. (26)

[Anonymous No.18541361]

>>18540152
While I am for workers rights etc I've always had a natural aversion to Marxism. Not sure if it was because of silly schoolgirls with Che t-shirts and designer's shoes but something felt off.
Now the actual question would be when did I become redpilled. Who made me?

[Anonymous No.18541393]

>>18540152

When I was 14
-I realized the only thing communism can create is a totalitarian antfarms of humans. the society with no state, no private property, no family, no prisons, no crime, no classes, is a religious belief like the kingdom of heaven in which we all will be "like angels". it will never happen. it's also a denial of science like psychiatry, there will always be dangerous psycopaths.
-I realized it's a religion substitute for atheists that is even worse than traditional religion, because it thinks humans are good and rational. christianity, through original sin, has a better understanding of human nature.
-communism mostly appeals to resentful people or to people who desire absolute power to do social engineering
-communists have never redistributed land to the people, because they know after one generation, social classes would be born again, because some farmers will be better than others, and may use their profits to buy the lands of the less successfull ones or less hardworking ones. but if that is allowed to happen, social classes reappear. (social classes are natural)
what they always do is let the state own the land, and anything you produce is given to the state so the state redistributes it. it needs constant state impossed tyrany to stop social classes from being born again.

[Anonymous No.18541616]

>>18541361
clearly and unironically, capitalists made you

[Anonymous No.18541627]

After I started HRT when I was 21 I realised that all of the philosophy and politics I had previous read was a waste of time, that I'd have been better off reading an unoriginal and badly written fantasy series or what /lit/ would call trash genre lit than any of the books on philosophy or politics that I had read
Now I just read fiction and some non fiction (books on boats/ships)

[Anonymous No.18541650]

>>18540621
>let's destroy what we have with absolutely no plan for the future and then end up reverting back to the same system after a series of disasters
Lel and lmao at commies

[Anonymous No.18541708]

>>18541650
who said there was no plan?

[Anonymous No.18541724]

>>18540152
> after reading an anti-philosophy philosopher, I adopted his philosophy and now can philosophically justify the claim that philosophy is a waste of time
bruh you're still doing it

[Anonymous No.18541734]

>>18541708
What's the plan, Doc?

[Anonymous No.18541746]

When will people realise that Stirner's project was a satirical takedown of Hegelian philosophy? No one with a brain could actually take his positive statements seriously.

[Anonymous No.18541747]

>>18541393
>the utopia paradigm shoved into economics

[Anonymous No.18541757]

>>18541724
>mfw this is the best philosophers can do

[Anonymous No.18541778]

>>18541627
>After I started HRT when I was 21 I realised that all of the philosophy and politics I had previous read was a waste of time
so you became a woman and dismissed your agency. were you surprised this happened?

[Anonymous No.18541792]

>>18540152
18. It was a slow process.

[Anonymous No.18541913]

>>18541778
No? That's just misogynistic
I just realised I was being a dilettante who wasn't truly interested in those subjects in of itself nor did I enjoy reading them but merely because I felt an obligation to read and understand them

[Anonymous No.18542023]

>>18541734
read cockshott

[Anonymous No.18542121]

>>18540152
These threads are interesting. A bunch of perpetual nobodies talking into a void about how after all they're so much smarter than someone who will always and forever be inordinately more important, revered and discussed than they ever will be. Keep up the delusion, guys.

[Anonymous No.18542173]

>>18542121
>marx is famous and you aren't therefore he's correct
is this the power of dialectics?

[Anonymous No.18542898]

>>18540152
I read the manifesto dont recall it.
I basically instead now analyze the psychology of modern leftists/communists from current events as well as a book called The Blue Communism

I think in effect communism at its roots is a Satanic/Masonic psy-op meant to decieve people into becoming golems but moreover it denies god which is objectively wrong from Tesla to Heisenberg to Jung all this high minds know god exists.

To me Marxism only appeals to genetic dead ends and psychopaths. Basiclally social parasites who cant into self improvement and instead of trying to sort themselves out they instead decide that not only do they know better than 1000s of years of tradition but that the millions of lives lost in the name of their insane utopia doesnt matter. At the end of the day most marxists are fat lazy nerds or skinny no chins who cant do a push up and think science makes them god. I cant even fathom the level of genetic degeneracy ingrained in a person to engender such a destructive selfish and delusional way of life that these people want to create a power system that favours them built purely off of either a lust for power or envy for chad. Marxism is literally a philsophy for tumblr feminists and incels who literally believe that a stable functioning society with rules and tradition is oppressive. This is literally why for example the communists went after all the Kulaks and the Jews have Loxism ingrained into marxism. They hate and envy the trust and earnest success of the white race and the power systems it builds.

Marxism is like a child throwing a temper tantrum because he cant eat cake all day and watch movies and get paid to do it although if you look at youtube look what what kind of lifestyle/career is it promoting to people?

Its a system entirely based off artificial principles which violates the rules of energy in a system thats why it always results in masses of people being killed.

I never was a marxist its just in school I when I had to read the manifesto I considered that it had valid points but really any shithole philosophy or government needs some basic valid things in order to persuade people to join it

[Anonymous No.18542909]

>>18542121
Not one of them knows anything. Anyone with any iota of love for reading and intelligence left this board a long time ago. On that note, peace.

[Anonymous No.18543062]

>>18542909
You and your iota shall be back tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.18543069]

>>18542898
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdwNgpUIipE
I mean this is the end result of communist subversion in our society. It is now more profitable to be a fat pig and a liar who causes drama than to be a proffesional violinist.

In essence communism not only destroys the successful but converts them into degenerates much like how the borg convert people into drones. Its simply more efficient to abandon spirituality for material excess and depravity because people will almost always choose the path of least resistance to success.

I see the long term plan of communism is to force capitalism/western society to implode so they can sweep in to give people a new form of government because thier current society cannot fucntion. In effect the way communism spreads itself is not by creating a better system but by turning the old system into a bloated carcass that explodes and then all the people are forced into worse slavery in the new system where they will be happy and own nothing.

Communism and Captialism are both abusive relationships. Embrace National Socialism and Hitler

[Anonymous No.18543126]

I was never a retarded faggot so I never got into Marxism

[Anonymous No.18543144]

>>18541913
>misogynistic against a man

[Anonymous No.18543186]

>>18543144
No?
That anon said I became a woman by taking HRT and thus 'dismissed my agency' and that it was responsible for me losing interest in philosophy and politics
That's misogynistic, even saying that a female hormone pattern causes women to experience what I did is misogynistic cause it leans into a kind of hormonal essentialism
I'm not saying that the anon is being misogynistic to me

[Anonymous No.18543221]

>>18543186
Oh and just so we're clear, I don't consider myself to be a woman

[Anonymous No.18543251]

>>18543186
So you have autism too

[Anonymous No.18543261]

ive never in my life was or ever will be a Marxist. I hate women.

[Anonymous No.18543266]

ITT

[Anonymous No.18543286]

>>18543251
Surprisingly not diagnosed, people always saw me as being quiet and a bit weird, but when the topic of autistic people came up I was never accused of being autistic
Then again I could just be really good at masking or maybe I got diagnosed really young and my parents tried to hide it from me and make me forget it and I just learnt to mask well?
I probably am very autistic though

[Anonymous No.18543308]

>>18543286
Clearly

[Anonymous No.18543329]

>>18540152
read this

[Anonymous No.18543331]

>>18543308
Which part of my posts makes you think I'm autistic?
Is it the ranting? The tone of my writing?
Me taking the 'so you became a woman' part literally?

[Anonymous No.18543340]

>>18543261
Marx thought that the most admirable quality in woman was obedience.

[Anonymous No.18543350]

>>18543340
Sounds good but knowing Marx he's probably wrong about that as well.

[Anonymous No.18543404]

The biggest argument against communism is to spend any amount of time with a communist.

[Anonymous No.18543427]

>>18543350
>knowing Marx
Which you don't.

[Anonymous No.18543449]

>>18540152
>at 14 I had the notion that maybe Marx was worth reading
>read Com. Manifesto
>big nope
>still liked Orwell, became Democratic-Socialist
>begin reading contemporary history, no longer believe in Socialism on it's own, though I'm warm to social-influenced Capitalism
>Read about Mao, Lenin, and Che Guevara
>develop deep hatred of Marxists

[Anonymous No.18543461]

>>18543449
Ok libtard.

[Anonymous No.18543468]

Everyone in this thread should watch Jack Angstreich ass rape Destiny over the LTV before they discuss Marxism

[Anonymous No.18543480]

>>18543468
No, I read books. I'm not an ADHD zoomer retard like you

[Anonymous No.18543487]

>>18540667
>heh I made myself the smart guy and everyone who disagrees with me the dumb guy
Welcome to politics, philosophy, and everything else that involves arguments

[Anonymous No.18543502]

>>18543331
All of it + you're trans
Nothing wrong with any of that u do u anon

[Anonymous No.18543544]

>>18543468
Why do commie trannies do this? “Just watch this five hour video”, “just read these 46 volumes”. You know no-one is going to (not even commie trannies read the shit) so you can feel safe never having to defend commie trannyism. Just explain your own beliefs yourself, weakling, if you actually have any.

[Anonymous No.18543550]

>>18543331
>>18543502
Dilate, incel.

[Anonymous No.18543577]

>>18540152
>All the people in here dismissing Marx as soon as they learn about him because of a combination of innate temperamental inclinations towards selfishness and internalizing the propaganda they surrounding him thinking they are smart
Have any of you actually read his work? His criticisms of capitalism are legit

[Anonymous No.18543634]

>>18543577
Nazis did more to fight capitalism than commies ever did.

[Anonymous No.18543635]

>>18543634
So?

[Anonymous No.18543636]

>>18543634
Fascism is capitalism on steroids.

[Anonymous No.18543648]

it never clicked, marxism at its root always struck me as stupid and wrong, so i never wasted time trying to convince myself otherwise

[Anonymous No.18543652]

>Marxists and uncle ted supporters both act the same way

[Anonymous No.18543656]

>>18540152
Ideology is fake and gay anon.

[Anonymous No.18543658]

>>18543648
What is "Marxism at its root"? Since it struck you as "stupid and wrong" you should be able to articulate it.

[Anonymous No.18543676]

>>18543636
Good thing I said nazi not fascist then.

[Anonymous No.18543691]

>>18543676
Stop pretending there’s a difference

[Anonymous No.18543692]

>>18543427
I'm gay btw.

[Anonymous No.18543698]

>>18543656
Engels said that in anti-duhring before being fake and gay. Marx said that about “Marxism.” The famous wife killing Marxist Althusser said that.

[Anonymous No.18543704]

>>18543691
Look at Germany and look at Italy in the thirties. Pretty different.

[Anonymous No.18543781]

>>18543658
From what I get from (invariably seething) Marxists online the root is libtard moralfagging meets Calvinism... the Prophet Marx says: the Proletariat (the elect) are Oppressed and Wronged by The System (Satan) but everything will sort itself out because History Wills It. The wheat will be separated from the chaff and the result will be heaven on earth, i.e. mass democracy (DotP).

[Anonymous No.18543788]

Has anyone met a buff marxist?

[Anonymous No.18543831]

>>18543781
The capitalist system absolutely produces massive inequality and intrinsically alienates people from their work. His observations are correct, if people carry that too far it's on those people, but Marx's work is good.

[Anonymous No.18543841]

>>18543704
They were different forms of fascism anon. All Nazis are fascists, not all fascists are Nazis.

[Anonymous No.18543854]

>>18543788
a buff Marxist writer, anon.

[Anonymous No.18543860]

>>18543788
Only one, he was a literal faggot obsessed with gym and dancing

[Anonymous No.18543861]

>>18540152
>politics... in general
I am a policy reductionist in politics. I couldn't give a shit whether you call these things capitalist, socialist, or something else. I just want burgerland to have medicare for all, UBI, publicly funded elections, and that the unarmed mental health police that progressives dumbly called defund the police.

[Anonymous No.18543867]

>>18543831
>alienation
Hegelian mumbo jumbo
Factories STILL EXIST in socialism you retards

[Anonymous No.18543879]

>>18543867
There has never been a society where the workers owned the means of production.

[Anonymous No.18543886]

>>18543867
Alienation means his labor is transferred to a product which is alien to him. In socialism, the worker has an ownership stake in the final product.

[Anonymous No.18543910]

>>18543879
Lel
>>18543886
Ownership stake ameliorates the fact you're a still an assembly line worker jiggering doodads?

[Anonymous No.18543913]

>>18543910
Yes

[Anonymous No.18543933]

>>18543910
>Ownership stake ameliorates the fact you're a still an assembly line worker jiggering doodads?
This is why Distributism > Marxism

[Anonymous No.18543941]

>>18543544
>Dude, why can't I just get a couple of easy to remember aphorisms like "offer and supply" or "free market" and be done with it?

[Anonymous No.18543951]

>>18543913
That's obviously wrong though, because ownership itself is a reification. It's not actually real

[Anonymous No.18543957]

>>18543913
So the worker's inner world is richer even due to that ownership (see Marx quote above)? Seems highly speculative psychology to me but okay. Because you take home more of the pie (even though money's been abolished), you're no longer estranged in a world of hostile objects even though YOU'RE STILL AN INSIGNIFICANT COG BUILDING HUMANITY'S REPLACEMENT?

[Anonymous No.18543972]

>>18543544
Labor is bought and sold, and as such is subject to supply and demand. As technology advances, more production can be done with less labor, thus driving down the demand over time. Add into this the continued globalization of the labor market, and you have the supply going massively higher. All this results in the average person who makes their living by selling their labor as getting a worse and worse deal for that labor. This means as society advances, workers get a worse and worse deal as more and more of the wealth centralizes into the hands of those who make their money from capital investments. The end point of capitalism is serfdom. This is so well known even Adam Smith recognized it like 300 years ago. Marx points out that this problem stems from the fact that in the capitalist system, the labor of a worker is invested into products he has no ownership over, and his relationship is purely one between him and his employer regarding the sale of labor like a commodity. There you go, now you know the basics and you didn't have to read a single book or watch a single video.

[Anonymous No.18543973]

>>18543867
>>alienation
>Hegelian mumbo jumbo

Basically, when you make a song/book/etc. - it is yours. Even if some company sells Shakespeare's books and gains moneys, they do not claim that *they* wrote the texts.
But when you produce a cheeseburger or an iphone components, you do not claim authorship of that thing. The craftsmen of old - did, they were similar to writers, poets, etc.
And that's the key difference and the core problem of capitalist production.

[Anonymous No.18543975]

>>18543831
>The capitalist system absolutely produces massive inequality
So what?

[Anonymous No.18543985]

>>18543577
I dismiss him because there are plenty of powerful critiques of capitalism that are not written by a Jewish materialist who has only, through the practical consequences of his theory, contributed to the downfall of mankind and the rotting of all intellectualism, where any opposition to capitalism is always framed by Marxists as being a matter of class warfare. It's both irritating and saddening, because even if there is a genuine reaction to modern capitalism, things can only get worse than they are now due to the rotted basis of that reaction.

[Anonymous No.18543987]

>>18543973
>neuro-autism muh brain scans bullshit
>sidesteps the fact socialism doesn't magically bring back artisanal production, but still relies on factories

[Anonymous No.18543988]

>>18543975
At certain levels of relative inequality, there will be revolts. If you doubt this, you don't know your history.

[Anonymous No.18543990]

>>18543941
If you can’t explain something simply you don’t understand it properly. No wonder it takes commies 40 volumes to explain how they see society.

[Anonymous No.18543992]

>>18541746
>No one with a brain could actually take his positive statements seriously.
Smells like cope by someone who does not (or cannot, due to intrinsic weakness) own himself.

[Anonymous No.18543996]

>>18543951
>>18543957
Ownership stakes relate to the worker getting the correct value transferred to him that his labor created. It's not about psychology, it's about economy.

[Anonymous No.18543998]

>>18543990
See
>>18543972

[Anonymous No.18543999]

>>18543972
>Labor is bought and sold
>>18543329

>as such is subject to supply and demand
We have problems with identifying supply and demand - and it is a problem both of marxist and mainstream economics. Pic related
You could easily substitute Supply and Demand thingamabobs with some "The strength of Gork" and "The cunning of Mork", or some other made-up metaphysical shit.

[Anonymous No.18544001]

>>18543996
Then why do Marx himself and many commie theorists frame it as having a psychological dimension?

[Anonymous No.18544002]

>>18543988
>there will be revolts
so what?

[Anonymous No.18544004]

>>18543987
>>sidesteps the fact socialism doesn't magically bring back artisanal production
>>18543933
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_XIII

[Anonymous No.18544006]

>>18543992
What do you mean when you say 'own himself'?

[Anonymous No.18544010]

>>18543972
>As technology advances, more production can be done with less labor, thus driving down the demand over time.
No.

[Anonymous No.18544012]

>>18543973
In other words, you want to return to trad steampunk aesthetics but you can't because History is unstoppable. I get your sentimentality but robo-artisans will shit out wholesome Etsy products at a rate of thousands per second. They will be paid $0.00 for their labor.

[Anonymous No.18544013]

>>18544001
Psychology is downstream from economy. If you are poor, it will impact your psychology, especially if your labor is being bought at an artificially low price.

[Anonymous No.18544020]

>>18541393
You're still 14.

[Anonymous No.18544021]

>>18542023
What does cockshott say, dock? I'm just a worker that can't read.

[Anonymous No.18544024]

>>18544013
That's not what they say though. Marx says the more you put into alienated labour, the poorer your inner life.

[Anonymous No.18544027]

>>18544010
More trad sentimentality. No different from Roger Scruton and Klaus Schwab.

[Anonymous No.18544029]

>>18544010
Yes

[Anonymous No.18544035]

>>18544024
Where does he say that?

[Anonymous No.18544036]

>>18544027
>Schwab
>trad
???

[Anonymous No.18544038]

>>18544035
Here, the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844:
>>18543867

[Anonymous No.18544045]

>>18544010
Can you explaind that?
It's pretty easy to make the "argument" of just getting a pic with some text highlighted or just tell "read these books". If you really understand all that just make the point yourself in your own words.

[Anonymous No.18544050]

>>18544038
It says "the less he is himself". If the alienation of his labor is linked with a capitalist exploitation, than it is merely the value he gets in return for his labor which is lessened. Getting less in return than the value you expend can be classed as being lessened, because you are bleeding value which the capitalist is collecting.

[Anonymous No.18544053]

>>18544029
>Yes
Pic related. Advancement of tech, doesn't mean less labor. It means consuming more. And therefore, *laboring* for that increased amount of consumption. Instead of less work you get more dildos and gayPhones.


>>18544027
>More trad sentimentality.
If by trad you mean, that humans are by their nature unequal, - that human cattle wouldn't even know what do to with their spare time, and that first they would need to *become* human, then yes.

[Anonymous No.18544056]

>>18544045
>Can you explaind that?
>>18544053
>Advancement of tech, doesn't mean less labor. It means consuming more.

[Anonymous No.18544064]

>>18544036
Yeah. His entire bit is: we need to create a more equal, wholesome world free from heckin neolib alienation, consumerism and icky pollution, only varying from Scruton and Marx by how it's worded, determined by who it's aimed at... bureaucrats.

[Anonymous No.18544066]

>read 1984, BNW, F451, and AF
>will never take Marxism or other bullshit seriously that's an obvious gateway to communism and authoritarianism

That's it. Don't need anything else. Just look at china they'll ban anything or anyone who is deemed a threat to the gov.

[Anonymous No.18544068]

>>18544050
>It says "the less he is himself".
No it doesn't, but it does specifically refer to "inner world". He's clearly saying something different to what you are. God, you people are slippery, aren't ya?

[Anonymous No.18544082]

>>18542898
the republic dies without censorship!
democracy dies without censorship!
the empire dies without censorship!

censorship is an exercise of power by a ruling class against their adversaries, fool
political theory is in practice only a tool to justify power dynamics

[Anonymous No.18544088]

>>18544053
This may result in commodities being cheaper (poor people can now afford multiple large screen TVs), but in regard to actual wealth, like property, it becomes more and more unobtainable for workers. Dildos for everyone, but you can't afford a mortgage and must rent forever like a serf. This is because the price of labor is forever being depressed, it's just that commodities fall in value too, but property, education, healthcare, and all the actual essential components to living a deep, rich life become more and more unaffordable.

[Anonymous No.18544093]

>>18544088
Social democracy fixes that though. That's just Reaganomics

[Anonymous No.18544100]

>>18544056
>Advancement of tech, doesn't mean less labor.
Do you mean it's just the machines doing the labor? You're really shitty at this.

[Anonymous No.18544101]

>>18544093
Social democracy didn't fix that. Actually read about the 1970s crisis in your country of choice. Chief examples are Australia, Chile, New Zealand, The United Kingdom, France, Italy, The Soviet Union, Poland, Yugoslavia, Portugal, The United States.

Social Democracy produced a reduction in the rate of decline of wages relative to the price of capital. The effect was labour clamouring for ownership over capital either directly (as labour felt empowered by reduced wage reductions), or indirectly by demanding MORE.

Fuck me, learn about the Boys from Chicago and the Chile experiment. Then Rogernomics.

[Anonymous No.18544109]

>>18544082
>censorship is an exercise of power by a ruling class against their adversaries, fool
Yep, Politicians, Billionaries, Banks, Multinationals. Not your boss at the grocery store. Nor your dad.

[Anonymous No.18544126]

>>18544066
>AF
Wut?

[Anonymous No.18544134]

>>18544100
>Do you mean it's just the machines doing the labor?
Pic related. No, I mean, it's just *animals* serving the machines now.

>>18544012
>In other words, you want to return to trad steampunk aesthetics
No, I'm telling you this: humans when under condition "we own shit, we create, we take responsibilty" act in a manner that can be considered "healthy". they live through their work/deeds, they produce great things, they act like human beings.
(This a common theme among philosophers. Fucking everyone would tell you this: Arendt, Nietzsche, John Dewey, etc.)

"And like the star that goeth out, so is every work of your virtue: ever is its light on its way and travelling—and when will it cease to be on its way?
Thus is the light of your virtue still on its way, even when its work is done. Be it forgotten and dead, still its ray of light liveth and travelleth.
That your virtue is your Self, and not an outward thing, a skin, or a cloak: that is the truth from the basis of your souls, ye virtuous ones!—
<...>
That ye might become weary of saying: “That an action is good is because it is unselfish.”
Ah! my friends! That your very Self be in your action, as the mother is in the child: let that be YOUR formula of virtue!" (c) Nietzsche

When you merely get a job on some factory, do bureucratical routines and obey orders, you become a slave. You just do what you are told to do, you burn your life-hours away, and you consume shit to forget yourself during a few hours of your after-work spare time.

>but you can't because History is unstoppable
Well, then we're fucked. As simple as that.


>>18544088
>This may result in commodities being cheaper
Even for some medieval peasants, commodities were integrated into a network of meaningfulness and relationships. You didn't just get a broom, or a jug. It had a history, your neighbour crafted it for you.
Now, you get a new iphone every month. It is not a thing of craft, it's a thing to consume and shit out. Like some cheeseburger.

>Dildos for everyone, but you can't afford a mortgage and must rent forever like a serf.
Peasant's were okay with relative austerity, because they had meaning. Your plight is, however, "we don't get to consume as much as masters", whereas the true problematic lies in "We don't get to become human beings".

[Anonymous No.18544139]

>>18544068
It's about context. His whole theory is in regard to surplus value being extracted from labor.

[Anonymous No.18544142]

>>18544134
>Peasant's were okay with relative austerity
How do you figure that?

[Anonymous No.18544149]

>>18544139
In your dumbed down, watered down version that ignores substantial chunks of what he wrote? Yes.

[Anonymous No.18544153]

>>18544149
What are you trying to prove? That Marx said the more your labor gets exploited the worse your mental state will be?

[Anonymous No.18544157]

>>18544142
>How do you figure that?
Anthropology. Primitive societies have *fun*.

[Anonymous No.18544177]

>>18544153
Just what I said initially. That most of the deleterious effects of what Marx calls alienation would still exist under industrial socialism, and that it's really a strange Hegelian doctrine to begin with.

[Anonymous No.18544180]

>>18544134
>Pic related
If you can't write down on your own words explaning what it's about then I understand you don't get it.
Before posting anything >pic related and just highlighting parts of a text pretend you'll get an answer with
>you're wrong
and the answer's pic related is a fucking library

[Anonymous No.18544189]

>>18544177
"apologists of the factory system can find nothing worse to say of any proposal for the general organization of social labor, than that it would transform the whole of society into a factory."

[Anonymous No.18544197]

>>18544180
>If you can't write down on your own words
I am providing a reference point to the words that I've already said and reformulated several times. If you can't get what I say, that merely hints about your (exceedingly low) level of intellect.

tl;dr - a modern day worker doesn't get to become a human. A prole is what Arendt calls an "animal laborans"

[Anonymous No.18544203]

>>18544189
This did pretty much happen.

[Anonymous No.18544205]

>>18544180
>the answer's pic related is a fucking library
This one is more concise.

[Anonymous No.18544210]

>>18544203
Okay, so, we can agree the factory system is bad?

[Anonymous No.18544212]

>>18544197
>that merely hints about your (exceedingly low) level of intellect.
Says the retard that strives to put together 2 sentences but magically has the gift to write "worded" shit.
>a modern day worker doesn't get to become a human
for fucks sake, you're just high on bullshit

[Anonymous No.18544215]

I wonder at the possibility of a central financial institution whose responsibility it is to leverage debt on tax income to provide people with reasonable living circumstances
centralizing the necessity of responsible financial planning, because it seems that if people haven't learned how to manage money by the year 2021, they aren't ever going to

is this a communistic idea?
I wouldn't know, as I've never really read economic theory

[Anonymous No.18544219]

>>18544210
Yes. I'm not even pro capitalism. I just hate fucking Marxists.

[Anonymous No.18544232]

>>18544219
I'm not even a Marxist, I just find some of his work interesting.

[Anonymous No.18544236]

>>18544205
>we live in a society
ok, you're trolling me

[Anonymous No.18544241]

>>18544236
Is there anything worse than a poster who just posts screenshots of pages with some sections highlighted and doesn't elaborate?

[Anonymous No.18544243]

>>18540152
I pretended to be a marxist when I was 13 because it seemed cool and I think I realized it was retarded by the time I turned 14.

[Anonymous No.18544250]

>>18544006
Read Der Einzige and you'll find out.

[Anonymous No.18544256]

>>18544241
He only posted like 6 pages

[Anonymous No.18544260]

>>18544006
When you get pnwned, but by yourself

[Proletarian monster. No.18544341]

>>18544215
>I wonder at the possibility of a [bourgeois capitalist state running a pension fund]
>is this communistic

no its wage labour and capital.

[Anonymous No.18544355]

>>18544215
>central financial institution
Anything with "central finance", "central bank", or anything like that, you can be assured is a "communistic idea." Marx argued that central banks were the first step towards communism; the power of money had to be centralised in the hands of a few to enable the workers to easily seize control of it. (I promise guys, this isn't a plot to get the means of production of money into the hands of a few big nosed bankers).

[Anonymous No.18544362]

>>18540152
marx is very intuitive, but the bar is understanding theory. once you can do that, as I did at age 24 you find Luxembourg, Pannekoa, Proudhon, and Weil to be making points you couldnt conceive yourself

[Anonymous No.18544489]

>>18540168
Faggot

[Anonymous No.18544522]

I've never been one, but it helped that my father, who I detest, couldn't stop talking about marxism and leninism (which I'm pretty sure he picked up in uni back in the ussr) when I was growing up.

[Anonymous No.18544543]

>>18544362
>marx is very intuitive, but
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2019/05/29/the-allure-of-marxism-and-why-its-a-mistake/

"So here’s my main point. I think Marx looked at private property the wrong way. Private property is not the source of our social ills. Private property is just the ideology that justifies hierarchy. And it is hierarchy (and the concentration of power that goes with it) that is the true source of our problems."

"When you own an institution, in effect, you own a hierarchy. But it’s not the ownership itself that is important. It’s the fact that ownership is what legitimizes your power. As the owner of hierarchy, you are the legitimate ruler.
Let’s illustrate this principle using a modern example. Think about what it means to purchase all the shares in a company. What are you buying? I argue that you are buying hierarchical power. As owner of the company, you gain the right to command the corporate hierarchy. Your subordinates obey your commands because, as owner, they believe you are the rightful ruler."

[Anonymous No.18544694]

>>18544219
Are you actually against capitalism or are you a fascist?

[Anonymous No.18544728]

>>18541393
>I realized it's a religion substitute for atheists that is even worse than traditional religion, because it thinks humans are good and rational.
Marxism doesn't hold that human beings are rational, and the class struggle is anything but a rational process. Some rationalists, particularly common to Anglo countries, may describe themselves as Marxists but I don't think they ever really understood it.

https://youtu.be/eAC2umTU-9c

[Anonymous No.18544730]

[Anonymous No.18544736]

>>18540163
???

[Anonymous No.18544749]

>>18544543
>And it is hierarchy (and the concentration of power that goes with it) that is the true source of our problems."
What a genuinely smooth brained take

[Anonymous No.18544750]

>>18541361
>I base my political ideas on the clothes of the girls I saw in school
This is bait, right?

[Anonymous No.18544759]

>>18541393
>Communism thinks humans are good and rational
Never happened

[Anonymous No.18544772]

>>18542898
Kek that pic

[Anonymous No.18544779]

>>18544728
>>18544759
That might be the case, but communism, as it is conceived by Marxism, cannot exist without humans either: A) being intrinsically good when capitalism is cast off, or B) being forcibly brainwashed and/or compelled to act in a way that is deemed "good" by some communist authority. If (A) is off the table, then (B) is the only option, which is not really communism in the sense defined by Marxism. So the only option left, if it doesn't want communism to be authoritarian, is to make the assumption that humans are intrinsically good when not "oppressed by capitalism."

[Anonymous No.18544783]

>>18544749
indeed

[Anonymous No.18544785]

>>18543069
>youtubers are communism
You can't be serious, this is not even funny

[Anonymous No.18544786]

>>18544749

[Anonymous No.18544789]

>>18541650
Except there is a concrete plan read Lenin you illiterate

[Anonymous No.18544791]

>>18544749
>>18544783
>>18544786

[Anonymous No.18544798]

>>18544749
>>18544783
>>18544786
>>18544791

[Anonymous No.18544803]

>>18541708
Smash the bourgeoisie state, the opportunists, the rich, etc

The government is ran by those who are left. The petit bourgeoisie will have no choice but to join the proletariet. With armed forces, govern ourselves (working class) until the State withers away

[Anonymous No.18544807]

>>18544783
Power != hierarchy. What that graph fails to take into account is that power changes hands, which is itself the cause of intensifcation of "raw power." Technically speaking, we live in far less hierarchical societies now than we ever have, yet power is still massively more centralized and intensely focused (due to state and techno-corporate entities which are fueled by technological innovations enabling rapid consolidation/centralization and dissolution of prior human hierarchical structures, which become redundant for the modern system) than it has ever been in history, as your graph illustrates. This is why your post is a smooth brained take. Hierarchy itself is not a problem, centralization of power (which becomes more entrenched through more systematic structures of private property and legalism as I just described) is the problem. I'm not a Marxist but at least they're clever enough to see that hierarchy per se isn't a problem.

[Anonymous No.18544823]

>>18544807
>Power != hierarchy.
Money is quantified power.

>we live in far less hierarchical societies
We live in very hierarchical societies to afford such a huge sphere of services. Jobs exist to make other jobs possible. And that implies chains of managerial subordination.

And these imply >>18544798 more moneys for those who are on top of these chains.

[Anonymous No.18544844]

>>18540152
I have been post-ism for a long time now. It's not that I specifically condemn any one ideology as much as I condemn adherence to ideology in and of itself. I like to draw on everything I read rather than excluding one thinker or another just because of ingroup/outgroup dynamics.

[Anonymous No.18544854]

ive always hated collectivists in all forms

[Anonymous No.18544863]

>>18544854
Hate yourself then. Everything is interconnected and subjected to the >>18544791 growth of energy consumption

[Anonymous No.18544864]

>>18544823
>Money is quantified power.
And?
>We live in very hierarchical societies to afford such a huge sphere of services.
No, we don't. Labor specialization is not hierarchy. You're confusing all of your words. The only hierarchy we have, which is not formal at all and can be immediately dissolved for any minor reason (share market collapse, eg), is those with money and those with less money. That is it. This system is entirely new, because it is ungradated and fluid, compared to the vast majority of world history and world societies, which had extremely stratified and formal, yet decentralized and organic, power structures, with rigid hierarchy yet minimal power in any single pair of hands, comparatively speaking.

[Anonymous No.18544872]

Even during the peak of my political immaturity where I thought progressivism was cool I never once thought Marxism was a good thing. Grantee, I grew in a two parent home and wasn’t abused so that’s probably why I didn’t turn into a tranny commie

[Anonymous No.18544889]

>>18544779
Marxists generally believe there is no intrinsic human nature so I don't think questions of "good" or "evil" really factor into the equation other than to maybe say human beings are "both." They also believe that "politics" as such generally exists because of conflicts between classes. If there is no sustained, general antagonism between people then their conflicts don't necessarily become political. Conflicts will still exist, but they will be mostly the problems of those people directly involved, and not social problems. Marxists also believe that there is a process we must undertake to move from class society to classlessness.

This is a revolution in which the working classes repress old class elements. And to be practical about it, this means that a socialist government can exclude and repress people who oppose socialism. Of course, doing this creates all sorts of controversies. The fact is that there is no easy answer to this. And, well, that's true for every political regime including liberalism, and the liberals actively repress forces threatening their monopoly / hegemony over the political system and economy. Americans have two political parties in the United States but they hold a monopoly of political power, and you could argue they're more like representatives of business associations which actually set the policies.

In short, this is how I view it:

>People make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.

So, we have to study our surrounding in a historical, materialist, parametric deterministic way. The world has a set of existing parameters that makes it function (social, natural, ideological etc.) and this limits significantly the various changes possible. Historical change is tortuous and lengthy. There are a lot of twists and turns. It doesn't move in a linear direction. That also means we have to constantly reevaluate economic development. Maybe that means central planning will be postponed for now, but this discussion exists and can come into fruition. Maybe capitalists should be thought of as more like soldiers. They're not desirable, but ones that have talents and skills at actually making things or innovating should be allowed to operate for now because of the parameters I just laid out, while just "making money from money" without benefiting the society should be repressed where it's feasible. But that requires the status quo institutions be subjugated to a progressive governing apparatus.

Bougie states otoh are driven by status quo sclerosis because they function as end of history instruments. There is no intellectual or conceptual capacity to act, to do these things I've described, because there is no understanding that there is somewhere to go. I think that's why liberalism seems increasingly moribund.

https://youtu.be/ACA774bm9wU

[Anonymous No.18544916]

>>18544864
>the only hierarchy we have, which is not formal at all and can be immediately dissolved
But it won't, because electricity must flow, and you won't give up your computer.

>can be immediately dissolved for any minor reason (share market collapse, eg),
And a feudal lord potentially can kill his peasants. And countries can potentially cause nuclear winter. All the power by its nature is *negative*: it's about how much shit can one wreck, how seriously one is to be taken.

>This system is entirely new, because it is ungradated and fluid
The fluidity of hierarchy power, doesn't negate the fact of it's existence.

>compared to the vast majority of world history and world societies, which had extremely stratified and formal,
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/09/04/stocks-are-up-wages-are-down-what-does-it-mean/
"Now here’s the uncomfortable truth. Capital is the same as mana — it’s a euphemism for power. Let’s run through the similarities. Hawaiian elites had power because they had mana. Capitalists have power because they have capital. Hawaiian elites proclaimed their power boldly. So do capitalists, who broadcast their power daily via stock tickers. Lastly, mana had mystical significance. So does capital. By controlling mana, Hawaiian elites became ‘vessels of spiritual energy’. By controlling capital, modern elites (we are told) become ‘vessels of productivity’.
The similarities between mana and capital are unsettling. But there is an important difference between the two ideologies. Hawaiian elites didn’t quantify their power. But modern elites do. Capitalists use the ritual of capitalization to give their power a number. This ritual, Nitzan and Bichler observe, does something unique. It makes capitalism the first social order that is quantitative.
For anthropologists of capitalism, this quantification is a boon. It means that we don’t have to work hard to study capitalist power. Why? Because elites do the measurement for us. They quantify their power using the ritual of capitalization. Then they broadcast this power to the world in the form of stock prices. To analyze capitalist power, we need only to remove our ideological shackles."

[Anonymous No.18544945]

>>18544863
except as a capitalist an individual my participation within groups is largely willing, not compulsory. that which is i am against

collectivism is simply catering to the lowest common denominator

[Anonymous No.18544969]

>>18544730
You did this? Wow. Have you tried getting into Vienna's Academy?

[Anonymous No.18544971]

>>18544889
So it seems to come down to the idea that humans will be good when capitalism is cast off. By "good", you also seem to have confused what I meant with some sort of petty moral goodness. I meant it in terms of social and political significance, from the Marxist perspective, where good is egalitarian and fair/just according to their own ideals. In other words, by your description Marxism takes the liberty to assume humans will not seek to dominate each other politically after the end of capitalism, which means that it supports the (A) premise in my previous post. It merely camouflages this assumption by stating that political movements and war are only caused by capitalist mechanisms, and therefore they are not "natural" with respect to how humans organize and act in a general sense.
>>18544916
You seem to have some major problems in your general awareness of reality.
>And a feudal lord potentially can kill his peasants. And countries can potentially cause nuclear winter. All the power by its nature is *negative*
Are you aware that you are using the word "potential", and then the word "inherently"? These two terms do not match up well. If power can potentially be used for evil, but also for good, how is it "inherently" negative? You've also just implicitly admitted exactly what I was trying to demonstrate; the fact that feudal lords, as hierarchically privileged as they were, actually had far less power than some common man today who weaseled his way with ill-gotten gains into political office.
>The fluidity of hierarchy power, doesn't negate the fact of it's existence.
I did not say hierarchy was non-existent, I stated it was far lesser today in all measurable magnitudes compared to history.

[Anonymous No.18544975]

>>18544945
>my participation within groups is largely willing, not compulsory
Meaning you can simply not work (without problems like starvation, having to pay for products, and having to deal with tax collectors)?
Meaning, that your willing is how much you *ignore*?


"Absence of Feeling of New Chains.—So long as we do not feel that we are in some way dependent, we consider ourselves independent—a false conclusion that shows how proud man is, how eager for dominion. For he hereby assumes that he would always be sure to observe and recognise dependence so soon as he suffered it, the preliminary hypothesis being that he generally lives in independence, and that, should he lose that independence for once in a way, he would immediately detect a contrary sensation.—Suppose, however, the reverse to be true—that he is always living in a complex state of dependence, but thinks himself free where, through long habit, he no longer feels the weight of the chain? He only suffers from new chains, and “free will” really means nothing more than an absence of feeling of new chains." (c) Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.18544991]

>>18544779
You forgot C)Humans, being animals, favour the system that favours them the most: if and when communism proves itself to be better for *me*, than I will surely adhere to it and protect it from outside forces, because of simple egoism/personal gain.
I also never really got why B) is always phrased like that, "In communist countries there's propaganda, they're brainwashed into liking their dictatorial system!" - do you know one single system that doesn't try to preserve itself by propagating its own ideas?
Capitalism has its own propaganda, but it's called "advertising". Take a random perfume AD: chad man kissing a superhot woman on top of a skyscraper while drinking champagne, and the flying is private jet to bahamas to fuck her while the sun rises. Seriously, what the fuck? What kind of relation to reality this is meant to have?

[Anonymous No.18545004]

>>18544971
>You seem to have some major problems in your general awareness of reality.
No, you.

>If power can potentially be used for evil, but also for good, how is it "inherently" negative?
"Negative" not in the moral notion, dumbass. "Negative" as in "it excludes, it prevents". A capitalist can block your access to his property/factories. A feudal lord can block your access to his fields.
If you defy them, reprecussion would take place. "Power" means - how hard he can bitch-slap you for defying him.

>feudal lords, as hierarchically privileged as they were, actually had far less power than some common man today
Oh, please. A feudal lord had autonomy, and could act as a judge on many things as he saw fit.
You being an "individual" means that you and millions of other people are equally powerless and subjected to Big Brother.

>I stated it was far lesser today
And I stated, it was far greater today.

[Anonymous No.18545021]

>>18544975
are you just arguing for the sake of argument? lol i can dislike something and be forced into it, i as a rational individual can be pragmatic and recognize something as bad (income tax) but to not pay taxes would result in my imprisonment

your argument seems to be that because i am AFFLICTED (not merely exposed, i see collectivism as a detriment to my individuality in all forms) by collectivism that i must benefit from it and therefor because of my exposure to it must accept it? or what? what the fuck are you trying to prove here with your graphs that mean fuck all

[Anonymous No.18545026]

>>18544971
>If power can potentially be used for evil, but also for good, how is it "inherently" negative?
Vassal's oath of fealty is essentially a list of what he ISN'T allowed to do: DON'T betray with your liege, DON'T kill his people, DON'T rob his people. It isn't formulated positively.

[Anonymous No.18545031]

Once I realized that Capitalism is a symptom, not the disease

[Anonymous No.18545034]

>>18544971
>So it seems to come down to the idea that humans will be good when capitalism is cast off.
Again, I don't think humans are "good" or "bad" in this essentialized way, although it seems human beings have the capability of being both at different times, in different circumstances, and at different stages of their lives. I think this is really a question over values.

>I meant it in terms of social and political significance, from the Marxist perspective, where good is egalitarian and fair/just according to their own ideals.
I don't think Marxism preaches egalitarianism. I think that's more of an anarchist notion.

>In other words, by your description Marxism takes the liberty to assume humans will not seek to dominate each other politically after the end of capitalism, which means that it supports the (A) premise in my previous post.
I don't think that's knowable, but I think socialism can be defined in a Marxist sense as the political domination of society by the working class. There may even be other classes, there may even be capitalists ("merchants" in other words) but they may not hold the reigns of political power like they do in capitalist societies. Marx called for a dictatorship of the proletariat. But he felt that capitalist societies were a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

>It merely camouflages this assumption by stating that political movements and war are only caused by capitalist mechanisms, and therefore they are not "natural" with respect to how humans organize and act in a general sense.
I think Marxists view every thing as containing contradictions. History is full of them, societies are full of them, political movements, religions, nations, classes. Every thing has an opposite and they clash. Slave societies contained contradictions that eventually exploded and gave way to feudal societies which gave way to capitalist societies and will, presumably, give way to socialist societies and then presumably on to communism (maybe), and within these societies there are contradictions and struggles until they reach a point where there's an open antagonism that develops into revolution. So in a sense, revolutions are quite natural.

[Anonymous No.18545037]

>>18545021
>i as a rational individual
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
Except you are not

>recognize something as bad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)

[Anonymous No.18545054]

>>18545037
ahhh so you got nothing, no points or position, nothing to add yourself just regurgitating the works of others and haphazardly declaring them relevant arguments

typical collectivist

[Anonymous No.18545058]

>>18540152
I was never a marxist and as I grew up the ideology seemed to me more and more untenable.

[Anonymous No.18545063]

>>18544991
>C)Humans, being animals, favour the system that favours them the most
That's a faulty premise because there is no generic "human", and even if there were, any given human would, at least foreseeably, only favor the system which favors itself the most, at the expense of others, *given the possibility*. So it comes back to premise (B), because that possibility must be removed via authority, unless you accept premise (A) in which no one would act in one's own gain at the expense of others after the elimination of capitalist systems.
>B) is always phrased like that, "In communist countries there's propaganda, they're brainwashed into liking their dictatorial system!" - do you know one single system that doesn't try to preserve itself by propagating its own ideas?
I don't like any propaganda or coercion. No, I don't like advertising or fascism either.
>>18545004
>If you defy them, reprecussion would take place. "Power" means - how hard he can bitch-slap you for defying him.
I still don't see how you have a point here. Yes, power can be used for self-defense if someone attempts to steal my property or attack me. Feudal lords had less power because he is able to "bitch-slap" his aggressors harder. That is perfectly in line with what I've already stated; that feudal lords were less powerful than modern capitalists, despite a greater degree of social hierarchy.
>Oh, please. A feudal lord had autonomy, and could act as a judge on many things as he saw fit.
Yes, but in general he still had far less power than anyone in high government office today in terms of what he can effect with his own actions. And it's not like feudal lords could just kill whomever they liked anyway, this is an inaccurate portrayal of medieval society (in fact, Obama probably killed more innocents with his drone strikes than the most bloodthirsty medieval tyrant).
>And I stated, it was far greater today.
Which you have virtually no evidence for. The only evidence you have is evidence of increased centralization of power, which I perfectly accept. Meanwhile, there is ample historical evidence for the fact that general social hierarchy has been significantly dissolved over the course of time, particularly since the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment. There is now only a faint trace of it remaining in the possession of money, which as I stated, can be lost as easily as gained if one is careless with one's spending or investments. Money may be power, but it is also power easily lost if one is not careful, unlike noble privilege which could only be lost by Papal excommunication or another serious legal decision.

[Anonymous No.18545088]

>>18545026
That's not how oaths of fealty exclusively work. One common example is that, "I pledge to fight all manners of folk in defense of my lord", among others. In fact, generally speaking you are wrong, because most of the stipulations are positive with respect to upholding the principles of honor, such as faithfulness, honesty, and so forth. These are positive stipulations, and there are plenty of others depending on the oath, so again you don't really have much of a point here (what that point is exactly, I'm not actually. I'm losing track of how this is even relevant to the original argument).

[Anonymous No.18545123]

>>18545063
>Yes, power can be used for self-defense
I declare this field to be mine. Therefore, you are tresspassing. Therefore, I am performing self-defence.

>Feudal lords had less power because he is able to "bitch-slap" his aggressors harder.
Capitalist has more power, because if all oil production companies stop, it's gonna hurt everyone really really bad. And it is technically absolutely legal in their right to do.

>anyone in high government office today
is subordinated to higher chains of command and cannot act on one's whim. Unlike feudal lord or capitalist.

>And it's not like feudal lords could just kill whomever they liked anyway,
And it's not like that nuclear winter has been caused yet. But POTENTIAL ABILITY to cause it, prevents other countries from actively invading.

>Money may be power, but it is also power easily lost
Money is ubiquitous. Everyone and everything is subjected to capitalization ritual. If you have billions, you are welcome anywhere.

>can be lost as easily as gained
Piss off a huge company (trying to making it go bankrupt, etc.) and they *will* fuck with economy, forcing you to re-negotiate.

https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/668/2/20210000_baines_hager_the_great_debt_divergence_preprint.pdf
"debt is borrowing for the payment of expenditures and the settling of obligations, while leverage is borrowing to invest in assets with the aim of making profits in the future"
"In other words, to the extent that leverage boosts profitability relative to other companies it also augments the power of the borrowing entity. And one of the most effective ways to use leverage in the service of profitability is to increase borrowing while at the same time keeping debt servicing (i.e. interest) expenses comparatively low. The ability to expand leverage at a minimal cost is something of a holy grail for those seeking to use debt financing to bolster their bottom line."
"Put simply, the higher the relative degree of monopoly, the greater the implied relative power. "

[Anonymous No.18545133]

>>18545088
>"I pledge to fight all manners of folk in defense of my lord"
Translation: "I pledge NOT to fuck with my lord"

[Anonymous No.18545138]

>>18545063
>That's a faulty premise because there is no generic "human"
That's beside the point, because the goal of communism is favoring everyone & humanity as a whole. Want to become a doctor? Free education and you will be get hired. Want to become a musician? See above. You don't want a college degree, you prefer a simple job and to start a family? Child bonus, maternity leaves, etc
> So it comes back to premise (B), because that possibility must be removed via authority, unless you accept premise (A) in which no one would act in one's own gain at the expense of others after the elimination of capitalist systems.
Except that this wouldn't be at the expense of others, but through collaboration. At the polar opposite, if someone wanted to extract value from my labor, that would go against MY interests, my neighbour's, my cousin's, etc, and good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.18545165]

>there are communists right now on this board

[Anonymous No.18545185]

>>18540168
>being unironic anarchist at 21

[Anonymous No.18545206]

>>18545185
"Anarchism" means "Desiring to be controlled by Deep State with no feedback, no awareness of it's existence (i.e.not being able to know what hits you. i.e. desiring ignorance)"

[Anonymous No.18545239]

>>18545123
>Capitalist has more power, because if all oil production companies stop, it's gonna hurt everyone really really bad. And it is technically absolutely legal in their right to do.
Yes.
>is subordinated to higher chains of command and cannot act on one's whim. Unlike feudal lord or capitalist.
Feudal lords and capitalists both are subordinated to various legal systems. Even kings were subordinated to the Pope in some sense. Capitalists are always bound by law. Political officials can be influenced by capitalists or they can act independently, they still have a degree of freedom.
>And it's not like that nuclear winter has been caused yet. But POTENTIAL ABILITY to cause it, prevents other countries from actively invading.
We've already established that potential of power as such is irrelevant to determining its given quality.
>Money is ubiquitous. Everyone and everything is subjected to capitalization ritual. If you have billions, you are welcome anywhere.
Yes, I've already agreed with this.
>Piss off a huge company (trying to making it go bankrupt, etc.) and they *will* fuck with economy, forcing you to re-negotiate.
Correct.
I think you've lost track of what my point was. Maybe we can agree to disagree here then.
>>18545133
That's a poor translation and poor understanding of feudal customs and religiosity.
>>18545138
>because the goal of communism is favoring everyone & humanity as a whole.
Humanity as a whole is not any given person, which could feasibly be completely at odds with humanity at a whole, and thus at odds with communism. Maybe none of those things appeal to the person in question, maybe they want to control other human beings, or anything else.
>that would go against MY interests, my neighbour's, my cousin's, etc, and good luck with that.
If there are enough people who want to take control under mutual terms agreed among themselves, and they have spent their entire lives abusing the communistic system to train their combat skills, it could easily be accomplished with minimal resistance by people who don't want to risk their lives when they still have life pretty good, and are promised that they can keep much of their luxuries so long as they agree to X, Y, Z demands of the militaristic thugs who take over.
All in all, none of this really solves the dilemma as it was put. You seem to be under the assumption that everyone will act for "humanity's best interest", because it is any given person's best interest, when this is trivially not the case. The only reason one would act for humanity's best interest is because one values humanity. One could also feasibly not value humanity as such, or value it in a way that is contrary to communist ideals of egalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.18545252]

>>18545239
>Capitalists are always bound by law.
https://rwer.wordpress.com/2020/01/17/still-in-the-danger-zone/

O rly?

[Anonymous No.18545257]

A cursory read through of this shows nothing interesting or relevant is being discussed. It's the same as ever: early twenty's retards giving a discord-tier """discussion""" over larpy meta narratives.

It's just so god damn detached to anything relevant facing Western society today. At least in Evolva/Nietzsche/Populist/Fascist threads, we get an honest discussion about the absolute state and what could possibly be done. How would a Marxist respond to elites and the pseudo-elite foot soldiers stomping on the common man?

>"listen to the experts"
>"yes corporations are bad but at least they are cancelling conservative bank accounts"
>"you need a phd before I'll read your tweets"

Fucking hell, why is your ideology so co-opted and stagnant?

[Anonymous No.18545329]

>>18540428
>Funnily enough, it was my first summer job that spurred me into leftism, they money meant nothing compared to how tiring it was
KEK!!! you can't make this shit up

[Anonymous No.18545354]

>>18544736
Gheys are like vampires. Once they sting you in your but hole, you become one of them.

[Anonymous No.18545536]

>>18542898
Congratulation, you are factually wrong in almost everything you said.

[Anonymous No.18545541]

>>18544789
>Lenin
Right 'series of disasters that ended up going back to capitalist private industry'

[Anonymous No.18545565]

I'm not entering the debate. Too much GPT-3 or unread frustrated early twenty something Schiklgruber incels.
Reminder however, that Capitalism cannot work anymore, due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, combined with market saturation.

[Anonymous No.18545573]

>>18545565
there is no such thing as capitalism
there are only systems, organizational structures, and power

[Anonymous No.18545575]

>>18545565
>due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_problem

"The lack of any function to transform Marx's "values" to competitive prices has important implications for Marx's theory of labour exploitation and economic dynamics"
"there is no tendency of the rate of profit to fall."

[Anonymous No.18545598]

>>18545565
I could have sworn there was loads of private industry stealing le heckin surplus value all over the world still. China even creates more of it each year and it's the majority of their economy now

[Anonymous No.18545609]

>>18545598
>stealing le heckin surplus value

How do you steal the negative amounts >>18543329 of this value?

[Anonymous No.18545610]

>>18543069
>one mans actions reacting to the free market
>is communism
Okay buddy.

[Anonymous No.18545619]

>>18545609
Are you just unaware of the continued existence of wage labor?

[Anonymous No.18545648]

>>18540152
Trading in Marx for Stirner is quite a downgrade.

[Anonymous No.18545662]

>>18545619
Quantifying "labor" is like quantifying "honour" or "insidiousness". It is a fucking metaphysical concept.

Moral judgements aside, there is no way you can build an objective, scientific theory out of this.
And if it's not objective, then it is no better than just saying "Deus vult!".

[Anonymous No.18545673]

>>18545573
There is no such thing as Capitalism.
There is only commodity, money, wage labor, the market.

[Anonymous No.18545684]

>ever growing "into" Marxism
If you didn't intuitively realize that Marx's LTV was false you are NGMI, Marxism is Late-Scholasticism tier

[Anonymous No.18545688]

>>18545662
What on earth are you talking about, people are paid a wage for their time working, the employer makes a profit. This system is still dominant in most of the world

[Anonymous No.18545690]

>>18540173
>>18540173
Doubt it. western marxists and radicals are often enough children of the well off.
It’s often a form of self empowerment disguised as benevolence towards the working class.

[Anonymous No.18545701]

>>18541314
which guenon book?

[Anonymous No.18545714]

>>18545673
>There is only commodity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregation_problem

There is no such thing as "commodity" >>18543999
The Cambridge Controversy devastates both mainstream AND marxist economical theories. You cannot assign a single objective value to a fucking commodity. Therefore, any calculations you make are akin to astrology (and astrology is VERY math-heavy, btw)

[Anonymous No.18545726]

>>18545662
>Quantifying "labor" is like quantifying "honour" or "insidiousness". It is a fucking metaphysical concept.
Time. With time. It's an abstraction, but it still makes sense.
It is like law. It is an abstraction. One who is starving is almost legitimate to steal food. However, the law is the same for the one starving and the one with a lot of food reserves.
Objectively you cannot quantify labor. But one day of work for a factory worker, is roughly equivalent whatever the branch he is working in.
His labor, amplified by machines, is what gives value to the product, and do not forget that machines, dead labor, contain a particular amount of labor as well, consumed in their fabrication. It's not like they magically produce value on their own.

[Anonymous No.18545733]

>>18545648
Not really.

[Anonymous No.18545739]

>>18545688
>people are paid a wage for their time working
You mentioned "surplus value". It implies calculating abstract labor hours. It is impossible >>18543329 to do.

>the employer makes a profit.
And samurais have and may lose honor. How do you calculate honor?

https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/09/04/stocks-are-up-wages-are-down-what-does-it-mean/
"If this ritual seems arbitrary, that’s because it is. There’s nothing objective about the capitalization formula. It doesn’t point to any fundamental truth about the world, either natural or social. The capitalization formula is simply a ritual — an article of faith.
This arbitrariness doesn’t lessen the importance of capitalization. Far from it. Rituals are always arbitrary. But their effects are always real. Just ask Bob, who’s about to be ritually sacrificed to appease the god of rain. The ritual is arbitrary — founded on a worldview that is false. Killing Bob won’t bring rain. But the rulers believe it will. And so Bob dies. The ritual is arbitrary. The effects are real."

[Anonymous No.18545752]

>>18545739
I was fairly obviously mocking the concept of surplus value. My whole post was about how wage labor is clearly still dominant

[Anonymous No.18545756]

>>18545714
Yes you can. Market price of a commodity, is cost of production, plus the average rate of profit, which balance itself between the different producers of a particular branch.

[Anonymous No.18545757]

>>18540152
Read Hegel and realized that Marx was completely wrong and rather than turn Hegel on his head, mutilated the absolute.

[Anonymous No.18545774]

>>18545726
>Time. With time. It's an abstraction, but it still makes sense.
No, it doesn't

[Anonymous No.18545775]

>>18543221
Why are you taking HRT then you fucking degenerate?

[Anonymous No.18545780]

>>18545756
>which balance itself between the different producers
Except it doesn't. Because Transformation Problem.

[Anonymous No.18545792]

>>18545774
Skilled labor create more surplus value.

[Anonymous No.18545801]

>>18545792
>Now, skilled labour supposedly creates more value than unskilled labour,
and the question is how much more? Marxists have devoted far less attention
to this question than it deserves, and, as a result, their take on the subject
hasn’t changed much since the issue was first examined by Marx and
Hilferding
Are you able to read, dumbfuck?

[Anonymous No.18545803]

>>18545757
Read Klages

[Anonymous No.18545804]

>>18544250
No, if it creates people who cannot explain it.

[Anonymous No.18545813]

>>18545804
I have no desire to explain it to anyone. If you actually want to know, you'll read the book. I assumed the person I responded to had actually read the book before criticizing it, but then again, this is /lit/.

[Anonymous No.18545827]

>>18545813
That wasn't me, I was just testing if you could actually explain it.

[Anonymous No.18545831]

>>18545780
Prices can differ from value, because of unbalance in supply and demand. However, price tend to gravitate toward value, from a global point of view (the sum of all producer cumulated of a particular branch), and in the long term.
Marx is an approximation, i'll give you that. Reminder that volume 1 was published in 1867. That doesn't mean he is globally wrong.

[Anonymous No.18545842]

>>18545801
If skilled labor create more value, even in non proportional terms. Say a competent chemist produce way more value in the production than a production line factory worker, then it's even more unfair for him, to see the value he created, taken away, and pay to the rich kid, who inherited, and own 20% of the factory, because daddy gave him his portfolio.

[Anonymous No.18545846]

>>18545827
The entire book is devoted to explaining it. It's not an abstract idea that can be easily summarized; this is in fact part of the purpose of the book, in a way that is probably purposely similar to Hegel's Phenomenologie. Stirner makes distinctions between two principles, Geist (ideals, thoughts, universal morals) and Body (pleasures, fancies, concrete realities), which come originally more or less from Hegel's logic. These are two principles which ensnare the individuality of people, people become "owned" by their own creations (either moral or bodily) and thus do not own themselves, they don't own their own mind or the bodily aspects of their existence. The egoist owns both his mind and his body, he owns himself, and he consumes himself. For more on this last phrase, read the book.

[Anonymous No.18545857]

>>18545831
>Prices can differ from value, because of unbalance in supply and demand. However, price tend to gravitate toward value
>>18545575
>"The lack of any function to transform Marx's "values" to competitive prices has important implications
They DO NOT tend to gravitate. Are you able to read, or are you just blurting sounds?

>>18545842
>If skilled labor create more value,
>As a consequence of these difficulties, the Marxists, like the neoclassicists, have ended up without an elementary particle. No one, from Marx onward, has been able to measure the unit of abstract labour,
Read the fucking text. It cannot. You DO NOT know what and how to measure.

[Anonymous No.18545862]

>>18545827
Whatever, workers earn more when their employers have better production facilities. Compare the earnings of a crane operator (or a PC workstation) with those of a guy operating a shovel. Everybody benefits from capital accumulation, and this is something that communists deliberately sabotage lol.
These psychos WANT workers to be poor to lure them into their deranged "system" - they do everything to *prevent* them from standing on their feet.

[Anonymous No.18545870]

A global economical theory still has to be created, as a Marxist, i agree on this. However, it's not the Marxists who put their foot in the door regarding such work, but the neoclassical economist, employed by the Captialists (universities, think tanks), having mediatic power, and for whom value is "created" by the market. The neoclassical theory benefit the Capitalist very much, because there is no exploitation in this theory: value is created by the market.
Anwar Shaik seem to be the closer to reunite both Marx and the neoclassical.

[Anonymous No.18545871]

>>18545757
>rather than turn Hegel on his head, mutilated the absolute.
Which is just a euphemism for "bringing forth the End of the World". Which makes marxism a cargo cult of a death cult.

[Anonymous No.18545902]

>>18545862
>Compare the earnings of a crane operator (or a PC workstation) with those of a guy operating a shovel. Everybody benefits from capital accumulation, and this is something that communists deliberately sabotage lol.
Until Capital accumulation doesn't work anymore. Capital accumulation doesn't work anymore, due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. If it seems to work, it's only because of quantitative easing, which masquerade the fact that Capital cannot accumulate anymore. Value cannot create anymore.

>>18545857
>Read the fucking text. It cannot. You DO NOT know what and how to measure.
You measure time. Market price varies from labor time, but only roughly +10% -10% (Anwar Shaik, Paul Cockshott calculation).
You saying it doesn't correlate at all is dishonest.

[Anonymous No.18545943]

>>18545902
It has worked since first humanoid invented a flint knife and it will work till our Sun explode.

[Anonymous No.18545955]

THE worst thread on /lit/ right now

[Anonymous No.18545958]

>>18545801
Marx was always aware that human are not equal. However, society work with unequal law, unequal rules.
Take road safety rules. They are unequal. Indeed, say a 60 year old rich boomer, in his SUV, going playing gold, get's a speed limit ticket.
Now take an early twenty something wage worker, being late because of an accident on the road, driving fast because if he doesn't get at work in time, he gets fired.
The situation are unequal. But the law is equal. Each will get the same fine.
Same with labor. Sure people are unequal. One is a strong, smart worker, who will create a lot of value, the other is a weakling retard. However, they are paid the same, already in Capitalism. Capitalism, is already egalitarian, when it comes to pay the wage workers. They are paid the same. Marx propose to keep this egalitarian view, making it even more egalitarian (1 hours of work equal one hour of consumption), in inferior communism. Then in superior communism, society could become unequal again, because we will be able to measure productivity of each better.
Back to Capitalism, it has nothing to do with merit, at all. Retards get the most value, strong and useful people get scraps. Take, for example, a rich inheritard, and a ER surgeon. The inheritard has nothing for himself, nor skill, neither courage, no willpower. Yet he get to take a massive amount of value. the ER surgeon has is middle range pay. Yet he is very useful.
Capitalism only favor... People who are skilled with money.

[Anonymous No.18545961]

>>18545943

[Anonymous No.18545980]

>>18545958
TL:DR COPE

[Anonymous No.18545994]

>>18545961
What an absurd, the expected average return from capital investment has been about 8% per year since the beginning of an industrial revolution.
45% my ass rofl

[Anonymous No.18546000]

>>18545902
>Market price varies from labor time, but only roughly +10% -10%
Transformation Problem, dumbfuck. It doesn't vary, because there is no fucking way to convert values into prices. Hence, you can deal only with prices.
And even if "labor time" makes some mythical values, you cannot prove neither that labor is the only factor affecting it, nor how much. "As it stands, there is nothing in the theory itself to tell us whether labour values explain 1 per cent of prices, 99 per cent, or anything in between, and whether this explanatory power remains stable or changes over time."

>You measure time.
You cannot, dumbfuck >>18545774 Are you retarded, or something?

"the most important problem is that Hilferding counts as skill-creating value not the total number of hours necessary to create the skill, but only those hours that the worker or his employer end up paying for. And it is here that the bifurcations of political economy and its equilibrium assumptions again come back to haunt us.
Since in reality the ‘economy’ is neither fully commodified nor separate from ‘politics’, much of the education and training is free – provided by the household, community and government"


>>18545958
>The situation are unequal. But the law is equal.
>>18545739
>Just ask Bob, who’s about to be ritually sacrificed to appease the god of rain. The ritual is arbitrary — founded on a worldview that is false. Killing Bob won’t bring rain. But the rulers believe it will. And so Bob dies. The ritual is arbitrary. The effects are real."
>>18545780
>This was no longer a secondary problem. Marx claimed his theory to be superior to the bourgeois alternatives, partly because it did something they couldn’t: it objectively derived the rate of profit from the material conditions of the labour process. Bortkiewicz turned this asset into a liability: he showed that Marx’s original framework was logically inconsistent

[Anonymous No.18546002]

>>18545994
Maybe these crooks have included some feudal Arab of African countries in their "calculations"? You cannot compare this shit.

[Anonymous No.18546053]

>>18545958
>Capitalism, is already egalitarian, when it comes to pay the wage workers. They are paid the same.
They are paid according to the amount >>18544798 of subordinates they have

[Anonymous No.18546075]

>>18540152
20.
After reading Hayek, Why Nations Fail and some studies about the Soviet Union. I think he still has some good critiques such as alienation.
I don't know where I stand politically now. I would prefer some decentralized capitalism that cares about the less fortunate as well but I don't know any ideologies like that.

[Anonymous No.18546101]

>>18546075
>>18543933

[Anonymous No.18546134]

>>18545994
>the expected average return from capital investment has been about 8% per year since the beginning of an industrial revolution.

Printed money? By printing money, i can also brag having insane high "return from capital investment".
>>18546000
>Transformation Problem, dumbfuck. It doesn't vary, because there is no fucking way to convert values into prices.
https://www.academia.edu/2733004/The_empirical_strength_of_the_labour_theory_of_value

[Anonymous No.18546163]

>>18546134
>Printed money? By printing money, i can also brag having insane high "return from capital investment".
You have it backwards, leftists (statists, collectivists) support fiat money and centralized banking systems. We'd put these fraudsters in jail.

[Anonymous No.18546168]

>>18546134
>Shaikh
>hedonic price indices to obtain ‘real’ quantities, or in using equilibrium-based econometrics to draw dialectical conclusions. Their voice is still Marx’s, but their hands have long been those of the hedonists
>Even Shaikh and Tonak (1994), who have tried to devise specifically Marxist national accounts, ended up employing a neoclassical price index in order to convert ‘nominal’ measures of output to their ‘real’ counterparts (Appendix J).

[Anonymous No.18546174]

>>18540152
19 when I joined a Communist study group in college and met other marxists

[Anonymous No.18546191]

>>18546163
Read Marx. Das Kapital volume 2, Chapter 13, V about fiat money.
Read Marx, Das Kapital, volume 1, Chapter 31, about central banks.

[Anonymous No.18546225]

>>18545958
They're both bourgeoisie - they both contribute (unequally, mind) to inequitable systems by participating economically. The proletariat is not an aggregate of wage-earners.

[Anonymous No.18546229]

>>18546163
>leftists (statists, collectivists) support fiat money
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/07/05/why-isnt-modern-monetary-theory-common-knowledge/

What’s interesting, though, is that few people misunderstand traffic lights. We all know that traffic lights can be put anywhere we want them, and that they’re based on an arbitrary social convention. Yet when it comes to money, the same is not true. Many people fundamentally misunderstand money. To them, it’s not an arbitrary social convention that can be created/destroyed at will. Instead, they perceive money as a scarce commodity — something that, like water in a desert, must be guarded and conserved.

It’s true that money creation can lead to inflation. But MMT proponents point out that this has an easy solution. Government can destroy money just as easily as it can create it. Government spending creates money. Government taxation destroys it. Again, this is trivially true. And yet few (if any) governments accept this truism. In fact, most governments behave as if money, like water, is a scarce commodity. Why?
The answer, I believe, has to do with power. The creation of money is inseparable from the accumulation of power. Here’s an example. Suppose that I’m a king who claims the sole authority to create money. And suppose that everyone in my kingdom accepts this right. I create hordes of money and use it to buy all the land in my kingdom. I put the landed aristocracy out of business. And in so doing, I put all the citizens under my command. Everyone, in effect, becomes a state employee. It’s the totalitarian dream — an entire society unified under a single hierarchy.
This tale is, of course, a fantasy. The problem for a real king is that his subjects probably won’t accept his right to create unlimited amounts of money. There will be pushback, largely from other powerful people. The landed aristocracy, for instance, won’t want to give up their land. So they’ll oppose the king’s right to create money (and to tax it out of existence).

Like the king, governments can in principle create as much money as they want. But in practice they don’t, because there are limits to their power. When governments create money, they accumulate power, which implicitly means taking power away from other (powerful) people.

[Anonymous No.18546255]

>>18540152
>spamming the same pasta on different boards and chans
do stirneroids rlly?

[Anonymous No.18546264]

>>18544021
cybernetic central planning

[Anonymous No.18546269]

>>18546101
Thanks, anon! Haven't heard of it but just going through its wiki page it sounds very interesting. I'll read more about this.

[Anonymous No.18546270]

>>18545775
He wants to masturbate to his flabtitties in the mirror

[Anonymous No.18546280]

Why does every Western self-proclaimed Marxist come from a broken family?

[Anonymous No.18546300]

>>18546168
I tend to agree with the hedonic price concept. That doesn't mean labor is not the major part of what constitute a final production price. Marx knew about what he called "psychological strain" impact on value.
Hedonic price indices tend to be mostly limited in real estate.

[Anonymous No.18546333]

>>18540152
I had the highschool mindset of "the 21st century first world is too wealthy to excuse poverty without government intervention" until I learned that giving poor people free money hardly improves society and that socialism functions on bad principles that pathologize society.

[Anonymous No.18546363]

>>18546300
>I tend to agree with the hedonic price concept
"This peculiar situation makes hedonic computations meaningful only under very stringent conditions. First, the characteristics that the statistician enumerates in her model must be the ones, and the only ones, that define the items’ ‘quality’ (so that we can neither omit from nor add to the list of specified characteristics). Second, the statistician must use the ‘correct’ regression model (for instance, she must know with certainty that the ‘true’ model is linear rather than log-linear or exponential). And last but not least, the world to which she applies this regression must be in a state of perfectly competitive equilibrium, and the ‘economic agents’ of this world must hold their tastes unchanged for the duration of the estimates.
Now, since the model cannot be tested, these three conditions must be true. Otherwise we end up with meaningless results without ever suspecting as much. Sadly, though, the latter outcome is precisely what we end up with in practice: the first two conditions can be true only by miraculous fluke, while the third is a social oxymoron. And since none of the necessary conditions hold, we can safely state that, strictly speaking, all ‘real’ estimates of a qualitatively changing capital stock are arbitrary and therefore meaningless"

[Anonymous No.18546380]

>>18546363
What is your opinion of value then?

[Anonymous No.18546412]

>>18546380
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics)#Power_theory_of_value

[Anonymous No.18546499]

>>18540152
I never really grew *into* Marxism truth be told, perhaps because my family had a tradition that I could appreciate and went back centuries.

That being said, over the years I have learned to separate legitimate Marxist Criticisms (particularly over the damage the industrial revolution has done to Human Society) from their Religion — ultimately in hopes that someone can combine solutions against Capitalism with Pre-Enlightenment Traditions. though I am well aware this outcome is far-fetched at best.

[Anonymous No.18546513]

>>18540152

I Intuitively knew it was stupid since 16, after I did read Oriana Fallaci. However, I understood the theoretical fallacies of Marx at 18 years old, when I studied him.

[Anonymous No.18546545]

>>18546412
The power is drawn from extracting value, which is cristalized labor. People have learned throught the ages (since the neolithic revolution) to worship commodity and Capital.
In Capitalism, having power, because one has extracted a lot of surplus value, seems "legit". Of course, this all works only because the means of production are private and protected by the State. In the end, people are okay will all this. Because they think that one day, they'll be "part of it" (which they mostly never attain. Only a handful). Until it doesn't work anymore (TRPR).

[Anonymous No.18546585]

>>18546545
>from extracting value, which is cristalized labor.
Nitzan and Bichler spent 3 chapters explaining why labor doesn't work. You cannot extract value from something that is proven to be debunked.

>to worship commodity
I repeat >>18543999 >>18545714
>The Cambridge Controversy devastates both mainstream AND marxist economical theories. You cannot assign a single objective value to a fucking commodity
Learn to fucking read. You are going in loops.

[Anonymous No.18546589]

if Marx saw communism in practice, he'd disavow his views.

[Anonymous No.18546640]

>>18540152
Marx was retroactively refuted by Plato and Homer

[Anonymous No.18546651]

>>18540163
Never seen such an abrupt turn from based to cringe in my life.

[Anonymous No.18546670]

>>18544971
>>18545004
>>18545026
>>18545034

I'm pretty sure in primitive societies with no private property the murder rate is sky high, and one of the most common ways of getting women for reproduction and keeping the tribe alive, is kidnapping them from other tribes during tribal warfare.

And very equalitarian societies are very oppresive, you can't allow the fast/strong/with great aim hunter get higher status than the rest, and you can't let him get more women, if that happens, it breaks society, so he has to be opressed by the other men, his merits denied, and if it's not enough, he will be killed for being disruptive.

Why do communists think the communism of the future would be better than the societies with no private property of the Amazonas or Papua New Guinea?
You can't escape opression, if you aren't opressed in an organized society with classes by priests and lords or politicians, you will be opressed in a society with no classes by your neighbours

[Anonymous No.18546774]

>>18546651
>>18545354

[Anonymous No.18546839]

>>18546670
Because they've already been enculturated, are now enlightened as to the inadequacies of the dominant social paradigm, and need peasantry to revolt effectively.

[Anonymous No.18547419]

>>18543636
>Fascism is capitalism on steroids.

>he still believes "fascism is capitalism in decay" and other nonesense of the like
ngmi

[Anonymous No.18547682]

>>18540163
Marx said something in the lines of "woman is just an ornament around the pussy."

[Anonymous No.18547690]

>>18546670
Congrats for at least understanding how primitive society works, unironically. (Reverse dominance hierarchy). That's beyond the majority of trads.
The thing is, we libertarian marxist are aware of primitive community shortcomings. It was communism, but a local communism, viewing the other tribes as mortal ennemies.
Commodity is an universality. It is an universality, alienated universality, but universality. It is the bridge, between primitive communism, and superior communism, were no antagonism will be left. A giant tribe, if you want, united slowly throught 12000 years of commodity social relations. Finally, commodity world, commidity culture (hollywood, pop culture, facebook, twitter, smartphones: lowest common denominator) which will at one point, reverse itself.
>You can't escape opression, if you aren't opressed in an organized society with classes by priests and lords or politicians, you will be opressed in a society with no classes by your neighbours
I don't think there will be oppression in superior communism. More like if you don't like a community, you can fork it. Leave, join an other, or create your own.

[Anonymous No.18547712]

>>18547419
Hitler’s Speech to the Industry Club in Düsseldorf (January 27, 1932)
https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=3918

[Anonymous No.18547793]

>>18547712
>Hitler’s Speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism

[Anonymous No.18547832]

>>18543636
Fascism explicitly hands greater power to the state over private industry, it makes no sense to call it capitalism on steroids

[Anonymous No.18547845]

>>18547793
Okay you are halfway now.

[Anonymous No.18547858]

>>18547832
State Capitalism?
The State job since a long time is only to organize Capital accumulation.

[Anonymous No.18547872]

>>18544134
>Well, then we're fucked. As simple as that.
I mean, yes. The question now is: What do?

[Anonymous No.18548034]

>>18545031
What’s the disease?

[Anonymous No.18548077]

>>18547858
Using the state to reign in capital is hardly 'capitalism on steroids'. You're using child-level critiques that nobody takes seriously except people already so bought into your narrative that they can't help but agree. Why should normal, working people give up on things they naturally dear like ethnicity and religion and tradition and nation in the name of your gay worker's paradise that promises nothing but material equality (which nobody trusts will be delivered upon anyway)? you're just a gay little fag and nobody cares sweatie

[Anonymous No.18548113]

>>18547712
Oh look nigga, Hitler promoted idealism and said the nation needed more idealism.
This clearly means the schizoid "da jooz" tier autism theory communists have been saying since some retard anarchist paper said it is true.

[Anonymous No.18548149]

>>18546075
Hayek is one of the most evil writers of the modern era. The Road to Serfdom is laughably wrong in it's assessment of the role government plays in the market, and the progress of our time has shown that it's private equity groups that drive normal people into a forced serfdom by financializing the housing market to such a degree that the only way for people to own their own homes is through a gift (usually from their parents).

[Anonymous No.18548404]

>>18548149
>private equity groups
Only if you consider the government to be comprised of private individuals.
Which is true, but you are either blind or deceitful to pretend that they operate on equal terms with non-governmental agents.

[Anonymous No.18548438]

>>18540173
Funny, it was when I got my first real job and I realized that my work (or really rather time) was being sold by my employer for nearly three times what I was paid, hence reigniting an interest in Marxian and Marxist thought.

[Anonymous No.18548442]

>>18548149
They also made it quasi impossible to build your own house because of regulations

[Anonymous No.18548446]

>>18548438
Kek what is Marxian vs Marxist

[Anonymous No.18548477]

>>18548446
>Marxist
Responding directly to the works of Marx and Engels.
>Marxian
Derivative works, works of Marx-adjacent thinkers, the application of a Marxist framework to fields not touched upon by Marx.

[Anonymous No.18548500]

>>18543069
>Thinks orthodox Communism has won in postmodern capitalist societies
That "Embrace National Socialism" was the last bit of cringe that it needed.

[Anonymous No.18548552]

chart is right but 200 IQ is stirnfag was stupid too but also probably didn’t exist

[Anonymous No.18548567]

>>18545775
To treat gender dysphoria lol

[Anonymous No.18548578]

>>18540152
When I was 17 or so. I realized the system created by a web of complex human interactions is a much more effective and realistic system than dictatorship of proletariats for any intermediate stage in any societal change. Like evolution is much more effective and realistic than intelligent design. No one is all-knowing or all-powerful enough to control the means of production and the economy for any period of time. I'm not opposed to a society with no state and no private property, but Marxist philosophy on how and why to get there is all intelligent design-level babble to me.

[Anonymous No.18548789]

>>18543831
>Basically, when you make a song/book/etc. - it is yours. Even if some company sells Shakespeare's books and gains moneys, they do not claim that *they* wrote the texts.
But when you produce a cheeseburger or an iphone components, you do not claim authorship of that thing. The craftsmen of old - did, they were similar to writers, poets, etc.
Marxists always jump straight to the factory or fast food workers, but what about a well paid journalist or tech worker that likes their job? A well paid journalist just like the Mcdonald's worker does not own their labor, they sell it to a newspaper for a wage. And yet I'm sure there are some that don't feel alienated, even if in a material sense they don't own their labor. Let me guess ... "false consciousness"

[Anonymous No.18549092]

>>18548789
A journalist makes his pay on reputation. His writing is his in the sense that it contributes to his reputation, which is what lands him a higher salary. It is standard for journalists to have their name on all their articles and that can't be removed, so the articles very literally carry the journalists name even if technically they are owned by the outlet. He is not alienated from his work the way a factory worker is.

[Anonymous No.18549448]

>>18549092
I don't see your point .... I agree being a journalist is better than being a factory worker and that they're not alienated in the same way. My only point is that the existence of high paid wage workers that enjoy their jobs refutes the idea that not owning your labor is always a recipe for unhappiness and a sense of meaninglessness.
Others in this thread have already pointed this out, but you could own your labor in a factory and it could still be soul deadening.

[Anonymous No.18549612]

>>18546191
Neither of those chapters talk about either of those two concepts.. The first is genesis of the industrial capitalist, the second is time of production. In response, seeing as you clearly have not even read what you're quoting, read chapter two of the Jewish Manifesto:
>The "proletariat" (see: big nosed "workers") will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

[Anonymous No.18549663]

>>18546191
>>18549612
More from chapter 2
>Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
>>>5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

[Anonymous No.18549800]

There are no more Marxists in the west, the left is dead, and we've been living under win after unabated win for capital and private power. Why do we need these rote threads bashing Marx?

[Anonymous No.18550043]

>>18549800
They're not calling themselves marxists anymore in the open, but they're destroying the West as we speak and blame it on "capitalism". It's purposeful act to build their "paradise" on the ruins of the western civilization - they try hard for their "prediction" of capitalism collapse to come true.
Some guy above above has said that the equity bubble and insane raise of housing prices (caused by ridiculous money-printing by state-monopolized and protected form market competition FED) is the capitalism's fault. These are the leftists crooks in charge of the economy instead (NO ONE is in charge of the economy in a capitalist, decentralized system)

[Anonymous No.18550053]

>>18548567
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8839957/
take primozide

[Anonymous No.18550098]

>>18550053
You mean the study which treated a patient who wasn't diagnosed with actual gender dysphoria but just delusions and 'borderline learning disability, a history of disruptive behavior such as aggression and frequent swearing, an intense fixation on the idea of transitioning, but “no insight into what a sex change would entail in practice"' and hence was treated with an antipsychotic?
Yeah sure anon

[Anonymous No.18550161]

>>18540152
Socialism destroyed my country, despite that i believe in delving in deeper into subjects so that i can have a justified opinion on the matter and i came to the conclusion that its retarded, and those who believe in it do not practice any of their ideas, and when they do, they do so in the name of social justice wich is one of the worst aspects of marxism.

[Anonymous No.18550280]

>>18540152
When i got my first paycheck and started talking with faggots, retarded criminals i refused to believe i was equal with degenerates in this society.

[Anonymous No.18550439]

My main quarrel with Marxism, as of late, is "The value of labor needs to be measured with time".
Let's say I put into my pornographic project 3000 hours; these hours consist of casting, sex shootings, editing, etc.
If I put my project for sale in a fundamentalist Islamic society, not only will everybody think it's degenerate, they will not buy it; most probably they'll ban it.
Thus, the value of labor comes from the values a certain society holds; and not what a given person does within a given time.

[Anonymous No.18550465]

>>18550439
Are you familiar with his conception of "use-value" and "exchange-value"? Or that he does mention the fact that some people will take longer than is the average to produce a commodity and that this represents an inefficiency? It sounds like you may have missed some of his core ideas which are built on later.

[Anonymous No.18550592]

>>18550465
>some people will take longer than is the average to produce a commodity
Some people on average would spend 8 hours on a cake. But suddenly, a hi-tech device emerges into existence, that could do it in 10 minutes.

Either on average the workers are fucking lazy now, or we need to ignore the device. Meaning, the same commodity has simultaneously different values.

And if it has simultaneously different values, then there is nothing objective to calculate. Meaning, the whole theory is not science, but a ritual, based on randomly generated numbers, selected by criteria chosen on a whim. You know, like astrology.

[Anonymous No.18550655]

>>18550465
>>18550592
Worse than that,
if we have difference between identically looking, but differently produced cakes - how are we to deal with differently looking cakes?

1) I made a beautiful cake, spending 8 hours
2) I made a shitty cake, spending 8 hours (I tried, but we are all that bad at cooking here)
3) I made a shitty cake, spending 10 minutes (I am that irresponsible)
4) I made a shitty cake, spending 10 minutes (it was always the plan to make it exactly this way)

Is the "beautiful cake" and the "shitty cake" the same commodity?