(untitled)

When did you realise Marxism was the only method capable of explaining the cultural and societal decay of bourgeois society, and the only weapon capable of abolishing it? It was after reading Marx's works and accepting a Marxist narrative of history against the postmodern rejection of grand narratives so hammered into us by society that I came to connect my struggle as part of a long historical process, but I still have little hope for the future. Can we share some positive vibes and resistance from the masses against present society? There's more to life than this.

>>54709 >only method capable of explaining the cultural and societal decay of bourgeois society, I wouldn't blindly agree that it's the *only* method, but it's a pretty good method >the only weapon capable of abolishing it lol no. post-leftist gang gang

>>54709 the problem is that during his time it was possible for a person to build a chair from beginning to end and in the process gain fulfillment. but the time is now, and we depend on alienated labor for luxuries such as cars and computers, ones we couldn't reasonably live without in the modern world. I don't know much else about Marx beyond his labor viewpoint

Marxism goes against human nature. Its thereby destined to fail in its advertised goal. It does however serve as a excellent gun for capitalists. Promise equality and let the gullible pay for their fellow man. This way everyone is equally poor and nobody can threaten your position by gaining power amassing wealth. Of course you yourself never lose your money because the regulations only hit where you don't sit.

>>54727 The “Marx forgot to account for human nature” meme is so old and also such a retarded take that Im mind boggled to see anyone use it unironically.

>>54727 >Marxism goes against human nature blah blah blah shut the fuarrrk up, wigg*r

>>54728 >>54729 >no counter arguments I rest my case

>>54731 If you actually read any of his work you would know why your take is retarded but since you haven’t there’s really no point in trying to spend 30 minutes of my time trying to summarize Capital for you. I’ll just take this from another site and hopefully it will cause your four brain cells to fire in succession and let you create a rational thought. > Marx held a consistent view that our human nature was expressed in a drive to spontaneously and creatively produce products in a manner that is conducive to social and individual satisfaction. (It can be argued that this view is in line with his third Thesis on Feuerbach, but developing that argument is outside the scope of this reply.) >The individual satisfaction comes in the satisfaction of the other. The reason it's so important for Marxists to remember that this is Marx's view of human nature is that, otherwise, his theory of alienation is rather untenable. >Marx's theory of alienation posits, in the crudest terms, that man is alienated from the product, the production process, his fellow man, and ultimately himself. If there is no static sense of self, or this ahistorical element to mankind, than the final moment of alienation (alienation from self) is essentially nonsensical. >If the self is but a variable mirror of the reflections of the society one happens to be born into, as D'Amato claims, then we can never be alienated from ourselves. >This loss of alienation and rejection of human nature is all too reminiscent of the Althusserian turn in Marxism; and if one is concerned with reigniting humanism into Marxism, it's paramount that we delve back into our theoretical underpinnings of Marx's concept of man, in order to give credence to the claim that man ought not to be alienated. sauce: https://socialistworker.org/2012/10/09/marxs-view-of-human-nature

>>54712 Post-leftism falls into the same trap as postmodernism in general: its rejection of grand narratives for small, local struggles makes it incredibly easy to co-opt and redirect into reformist projects. This is why their "movements" (isolated in individuals, another problem) can achieve concessions in the form of reforms but then fizzle out or lose their meaning. >>54717 Later Marx isn't really as concerned with the theory of alienation and in general it isn't important to his theory - only humanists still take this aspect seriously, and as implied Marx himself largely abandoned the concept over time. In my view what really makes Marxism stand out as a critique of capitalism is his theory of commodity fetishism and our relation to each other as producers of commodities - and how it affects our modern-day bourgeois democratic states. Michael Heinrich has a good presentation on the subject: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xoHDL0nHimU >>54727 The aforementioned concept is what made me believe a better world is possible (and how to achieve it, per Capital, Critique of the Gotha Programme, etc.) - nothing about commodities and capitalism is natural. It's just another stage in history like all the ones before it that came and went.

>>54709 >hello, I'm 13 years old and just read Karl Marx and I think it is deep lmao

>>54734 You're free to contribute counter-arguments if you like. No one's forcing it on you.

>>54735 I don't need to counter argument ideology that brought humanity more deaths than any other ideology in human history.

>>54736 More people than have died in capitalist wars, or that have died in imperialised countries due to lack of basic necessities through unequal exchange in the capitalist market economy? I doubt that. But you wouldn't really care either way.

>More people than have died in capitalist wars No such things in history. > or that have died in imperialised countries Indeed a lot of people died in communist soviet union and in China >lack of basic necessities through unequal exchange in the capitalist market economy? No other system ensured as big amount of basic necessities to the masses as capitalismdid. Under capitalism no exchange is made unless both parties benefit. All that communism achieves is gradual decay of quality of life and equal distribution of poverty.

One problem is the """Modern leftism""": "The Psychology of Modern Leftism 6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general. 7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227–230.) 8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries. 9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call feelings of inferiority and oversocialization. Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential. Feelings of Inferiority 10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed), and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism. " "227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what we mean by the word “leftist.” There doesn’t seem to be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g., radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist. 228. But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have to use your judgment. 229. The leftist is oriented toward large-scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for social planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catchphrases of the left, like “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism,” “genocide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist.[36] 230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, “enlightened” psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois. " >https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future#toc2

>>54738 Impressively stupid post.

>>54740 Incredibly deep comment you wrote to it

>>54741 Gave it the amount of critical engagement it deserved

>>54742 >arguing with fact is too hard for me as expected from commietard

>>54717 >ones we couldn't reasonably live without in the modern world This belies a lack of imagination. The only people who are truly reliant on modern contrivances are those who would die without high tech medical care, like diabetics or cancer patients. Look how blatantly they are exploited. One thing is certain of capitalists: they truly are bloodsuckers. All we really need is water, food, shelter, maybe clothes, and a sense of place and belonging and purpose. If you want out of this rolling disaster we call capitalism, you must first be willing to imagine how things could be better. I don't even call myself a communist any more, just because I think materialism is a bankrupt ideology and most communists are materialists, but they're right in many respects.

>>54744 > If you want out of this rolling disaster we call capitalism, you must first be willing to imagine how things could be better. Just get rid of what YOU (commies) call capitalism and introduce what capitalists call capitalism - free market with cheap high quality stuff getting cheaper with advancement of technology. Far better than current cronyism of state regulated and subsided oligopoly that bans americans from buying cheap insulin from other countries.

>>54738 >No such things in history. Literally all wars for maintaining commercial hegemony, such as the entirety of the US' debacle in the Middle East, qualify. fuarrrk are you going on about?

>>54746 >Literally all wars for maintaining commercial hegemony, such as the entirety of the US' debacle in the Middle East, qualify. fuarrrk are you going on about? I see no connection to capitalism. It's plutocratic.

>>54747 "Not real capitalism" Your ancap utopia is literally impossible, here's why: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xoHDL0nHimU

>>54745 >cheap high quality stuff getting cheaper like I said, I'm not a materialist, I don't think "stuff is plentiful!" is a valid measure of quality of life. >Far better than current cronyism of state regulated and subsided oligopoly that bans americans from buying cheap insulin from other countries. watch how fast the insulin importers jack up prices once they have the market cornered.

>>54745 >>54750 These hypotheticals are completely worthless because the state under capitalism is essential, capital *cannot survive* without the state - its logic is to multiply and valorise no matter the cost, and the only way this is sustainable is for a state to exist and enforce rules on every capitalist equally (which are just mediums of capital rather than capital personified and are subordinated to capital, not the other way around). It was the state that had to ensure capitalist child labour was criminalised with support of even many capitalists, because they knew that without these rules being enforced by an "impartial" third party they could not risk the smallest advantage. Anarcho-capitalism would not have this, it's literally a pipe dream that cannot ever exist.

>>54751 (me) And before someone says "but obviously poor working conditions and capitalist child labour are bad in the long run", yes, this is why capitalists supported state measures against themselves, because the market does not think in long terms.

>>54732 >guys if i assume people behave different then it would work >random tards take it serious Im impressed, youre dumber than i thought possible

>>54733 >nothing about commodities and capitalism is natural. It's just another stage in history like all the ones before it that came and went. In an enviroment of finite resources competition arises naturally. Because competition is a threat to your survival the next logical step is to extinguish anything that merely could threaten you. With that you have the foundation of modern capitalism - you want to hoard resources and you want to kill any upstarts threatening your position.

>>54754 Your basic premise is correct in my view, finite resources do lead back to capitalism in the present day. That doesn't mean it has to, you can hold a respectable struggle against it like the Soviet Union did for a small part of its existence (it was always capitalist, but for a short while it was a proletarian dictatorship holding off a fully capitalist superstructure), but that it's eventually inevitable without a world revolution to take advantage of shared resources and put an end to the artificial scarcity that global capitalism thrives on. But we lived most of human history without capitalism, with what was to us infinite resources before the development of science and technology, etc. Communism in this sense is a negation of our undoing, a return to the normality of most of our existence, but also a supersession of its limits: the apex of human development, where all our progress is centralised and shared among everyone and scarcity becomes nonexistent again for our purposes.

>>54755 There never was a stage in the ussr where a elite class didn't exist. You always had people eating well while the lower class had little. Personally i believe the whole stick was mostly about replacing the existing elite. They got rid of the royal family and executed the king as part of their schemes. The biggest beneficiary of the whole movement where the party members at the top. As for human history why do you think only homo sapiens is left? The rest got killed in conflict over territory. In fact there's anthropologist theorizing that sapiens isn't even the smartest one, just the most social which made him better suited for larger group warfare. This isn't special to humans either - every animal has territorial fights because everyone procreates until the enviroment is filled at which point they start fighting for resources. This happens even at lower scale with bacteria.

>>54709 Crappy OP leading to crappy discussion. Bad thread.

>>54756 ...okay? I didn't once deny that party members had exclusive privileges, and that these grew larger and larger and laid the foundation toward capitalist transition, but this does not mean there wasn't a respectable struggle both in and outside the party against this tendency - and had the revolutions in Western Europe succeeded they could have won out much earlier. It's useless to be render yourself useless before your level of economic development, people are capable of transforming it and subordinating it under their will, but only to the extent given to them by what they have at their disposal. You can't build a sand castle without sand, but you can lay a foundation and build on it over time. >>54757 I was just looking for hopeful news and maybe personal anecdotes from the OP, because the last time I tried making a theory thread it got deleted for being too broad. Wasn't really expecting this one to become the theory thread.

Marx actually copied some ideas from various anarchist thinkers as well as Adam Smith.

>>54756 >You always had people eating well while the lower class had little. The New Economic Plan saw the greatest average upward mobility in Russia's history. >As for human history why do you think only homo sapiens is left? The rest got killed in conflict over territory. They were outcompeted, which did involve warfare, but there are numerous environmental factors that were at play. There's no evidence that it amounted to genocide.

>>54756 >This isn't special to humans either - every animal has territorial fights because everyone procreates until the enviroment is filled at which point they start fighting for resources. Every *solitary* animal. There are all kinds of weird behaviour that can happen. Many insects are what's called gregarious, meaning they tend to move in swarms or clump up. And that's not even the same thing as eusocial. >This happens even at lower scale with bacteria. Bacteria also often work together to form colonies.

>>54760 You're telling me a philosopher was inspired by other philosophers?

>>54758 It was nepotism from the start where family members got jobs they shouldn't which is at least partially why things went to soykaf - instead of letting experts make important decisions you had some elite party members inbred uncle tell the expert what to do. Secondary party membership was a way to escape joining the army which brought in a lot of people who had no goal beyond that. It was build to fail from the start because the rules that promoted the party ultimately also lead to a lot of dead weight.

>>54764 I know it sounds obvious. I was just pointing out Marxism isn't the only capable method.

>>54766 Source: your ass

>>54771 typical response dad was a party member so i know from him, what are you? Some amerifat trying to larp as an expert?

>>54766 Please stop equating post-Stalin USSR to vanguard party politics in general, it's silly.

>>54772 Someone who doesn't think "drrr my dad was a party member so I know about the theory and history of Leninist practice". Your lived experience is worthless and doesn't make you educated.

>>54774 >i tell what happened >replies he read theory got are you fuarrrking stupid, swedistan just showcased a suicide both i think you wanna look into that

>>54775 History isn't pre-determined.

>>54709 >When did you realise Opinion discarded

>>54749 >"Not real capitalism" Country run wars are not capitalist wars. In fact wars are anitcapitalist as they ruin economies and cause malinvestments and are typically financed by deficit spendings. That's disasterous for capitalist society as it's a forced involuntary redistribution of capital from private owners to o a monpolyst - the state. There is no voluntary exchange of capital in war. Therefore war is not capitalist by definition. They can be mercantilist tho. But mercantilism is a different beast. Just because something has commerce factor in it does not make it automatically capitalist. There were and are many non capitalist systems that have commerce elements in it. Pirates plundering ships or exortion collecting gangs are doing that for financial gains but these are not capitalist activities as there is no voluntary exchange.

>>54784 >In fact wars are anitcapitalist as they ruin economies and cause malinvestments and are typically financed by deficit spendings. They ruin economies of the land where they're fought. If all you do is maintain a military occupation of some tiny provinces hundreds or thousands of miles away, extracting their resources with virtually no chance of a meaningful counterattack because they are small and have no allies, then it's a massive boon to your economy. It's something any intelligent emperor in history could have told you. Anywho, capitalists don't necessarily do what is good for the capitalist class, they tend to do what is good for them individually. If a certain sector of the economy (like say... the arms business... or some kind of military-industrial complex...) became massively intertwined with the government, and made phat stacks off such a deal, they would absolutely do it even if they were causing a massive economic depression. They don't care, they'll come out fine if they play their cards right. This is literally something a former US president told us was happening. Would a guy whose career was all about keeping up a thoroughly ideologically capitalist nation-state, warn us about such a thing if it wasn't real?

>>54786 >Anywho, capitalists don't necessarily do what is good for the capitalist class, they tend to do what is good for them individually. If a certain sector of the economy (like say... the arms business... or some kind of military-industrial complex...) became massively intertwined with the government, and made phat stacks off such a deal, they would absolutely do it even if they were causing a massive economic depression. They don't care, they'll come out fine if they play their cards right. Capitalist is a person with capitalist views. There is no such thing as "capitalist class" like there is no "socialist class. What you are talking about is a another plan. You are confusing elements of a bigger puzzle. Doing what is good for yourself exists in literally every system that humans tried and is a sole reason why communism fails and results in mass murders every time people try to introduce it. Because communism pretends that communists do not do such thing. It's a central core of communist failure. It always ends in a plutocracy that harness all power and mask own greed with beautiful emtpy phrases about how they care about good of working people. In capitalism however the fact that person cares about themselves the most is a core factor taken in consideration. That's why capitalism opposes to central planing and centralized control - as people themselves are most aware where they need to have roads, hospitals, electricity etc. Not some dudes in remote capital city. Capitalism fails by introducing so high standards of living and better quality of life that people graduately forget how much work it costed their precedessors to built all that wealth and start playing with redistribution of wealth that becames bigger and bigger and less and less voluntary as they start redistributing wealth of other members of society. That results in missallocation of capital as there is no feedback mechanism of repsonsibility for bad decisions when you operate with not yours capital. It's not you who feel the pain when your action cause not your capital to go pointless things. You take no punishment in wasting that capital. You may also came to conclusion that lack of expected by you effect of your action was not due to your bad judgment of the outcomes of putimg that capital into something but rather due to not putting enough of such (again not yours) capital into something. That leads to escalation of missalocation of capital/resources. In capitalism it's you who own your capital and no one else. You are the one who gets punished by your own financial mistakes and no one else. >This is literally something a former US president told us was happening. Would a guy whose career was all about keeping up a thoroughly ideologically capitalist nation-state, warn us about such a thing if it wasn't real? I barely remember any president giving a fuarrrk about keeping capitalism in the USA in past few decades since 1971 when Nixon introduced in practic a anticapitalist fiat currency system. Anticapitalist policies of govt escalated in 1987 when Greenspan bailed out US stock market. Erosion of capitalism in USA only escalates withe every decade with every bailout and introduction of new regulations that give oligopolic power to corporations by limiting or even denying accessto the market to new competitors. Also mentioned bailouts is unvoluntary transfer of purchasing power from acounts of US savers (middle class) to banks and big corpos. Also these banksters and corpos gain a feeling that they can take whatever risk they can no matter how big and unreasonable and there is always going to ba a govt that would rescue them with free money. It's a government guaranteed license to gamble with not their money and lose all of these money. In a free market such banks and companies would get bankrupt and eliminate themselves from the economy. Also deficit spending of governments only skyrocket with every new president no matter if he is from Democratic or Republican party. These spendings are being financed mostly by money printing which is in this case transfer of purchasing power from savings and earnings to the government without asking voters for permission.

>>54738 >No such things in history. What about the Opium wars?

>>54727 Human nature is not black and white. It's influenced by material conditions.

>>54784 >There is no voluntary exchange of capital in war. Neither is there without the state in peace time. If there is no force to guarantee that the two parties engaging in economic exchange ('economic' being here anything that involves utility) are doing so as equals, then one or the other can subjugate the latter/former by the sheer number of the utilities that s/he possesses. This is literally what happened at the start of the industrial age: people (the suckers) being desperate enough would sell their very souls to the robber barons (the winners) in order to keep their families fed, even if the wages were soykaf, working conditions terrible and you were stuck in a company town debt-list indefinitely. Capitalism breeds inequality and not in a million years would it have produced let alone mentioned something like 'equality' or 'worker's rights' if it weren't for the dissatisfied political mobilization of the socialists. This is why the current libertarians despise unionization and actively seek to suppress and prevent all such activities - because empowering the workers would affect their profit margins (and no "rational" person wants to suffer losses). The natural tendency which capitalism fosters is the drive towards monopolies due to the profit principle - no need to look further than Google to see this in action. Due to the inequalities which capitalism inevitably produces, an ultimate equalizer is necessary. It is only because the banks and corporations became "too big to fail" that the state was forced to intervene, thus enabling the capitalist individualists' continued exercise of unmitigated greed, exploitation and reckless risk-taking. That is why no power should rise above the state, and all that do so are to be expunged: because the system produces anti-citizens by encouraging such tendencies inherent to the human beast, consequently creating more slaves than masters if there are no fail-safe mechanisms to their power. >inb4 the state doesn't protect its citizens even now; it creates more slaves and oppression than the corpos Only because you're doing it wrong.

>>54790 >t's influenced by material conditions. Exactly and the basic conditions living on this planet are a constant fight over the limited resources available. The fight over territory & mating partners is eternal regardless of other circumstances. You have to deal with housing space as much as the first cavemen. Its fancier today of course but its the same struggle to secure your own space.

>>54796 >basic conditions living on this planet are a constant fight over the limited resources available. The fight over territory & mating partners is eternal regardless of other circumstances. You have to deal with housing space as much as the first cavemen. Its fancier today of course but its the same struggle to secure your own space. reactionary, myopic lies propagating austerity logic

>>54800 you cant argue against it so you start screeching aimlessly. Its pathetic honestly.

>>54727 >Promise equality and let the gullible pay for their fellow man "But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege." Can you guess who said that?

>>54802 Can you differentiate reality and theory? I wrote about what is happening right now. Right now welfare programs subsidize low wages while the corp pockets the savings. And where does the money come from? Your taxes. You literally got baited with "help yer fellow man support welfare" into actually paying the corps wages which they happily record now as part of their profit. And because you get taxed heavier to pay others peoples wages you have less ability to finance competing corps / invest in your own biz. Its literally whats happening now.

>>54787 >Capitalist is a person with capitalist views. Whenever I say "capitalist" I mean somebody who owns capital. When I say "capitalism" I mean the ideology of states where capitalists are the dominant social class. If you mean something different, that's fine -- you can just imagine that I'm writing a different word. >There is no such thing as "capitalist class" like there is no "socialist class. in a socialist society (meaning, a dictatorship of the proletariat) there is such a thing as a socialist class. In the USSR it would be party members. >Doing what is good for yourself exists in literally every system that humans tried and is a sole reason why communism fails and results in mass murders every time people try to introduce it. Sure, if you mean to simplify the actual historical events to the point that you're basically saying nothing of substance. >That's why capitalism opposes to central planing and centralized control - as people themselves are most aware where they need to have roads, hospitals, electricity etc. Not some dudes in remote capital city. Except that capitalists (the people who own capital) tend to centralize their corporations so as to maximize profit extraction. Usually this results in massive misallocation of funds, i.e., stores going broke due to executives fuarrrking around. >I barely remember any president giving a fuarrrk about keeping capitalism in the USA in past few decades Lyndon B. Johnson, the guy before Nixon, warned the nation about the military-industrial complex in a speech after he left office. You should try reading a book some time.

>>54804 >Lyndon B. Johnson it was Dwight D. Eisenhower, former US general and president.

>>54803 That has nothing to do with Marxism.

>>54826 Congrats you got the point i already stated at the first post. You just get marketing and you buy into the hype like a gullible tard. In reality you get what you see.

>>54829 You are fuarrrking retarded if you haven't noticed yet. Hope you grow up some day.

>>54831 >grow up telltale sign of an idiot got a new spin to parrot and now thinks hes educated and smart

>>54727 You provided no evidence of what is human nature.

>Marxism thread is mostly people calling each other retarded colour me surprised

>>54836 maybe read the discussion below the post you refer to, its simply the outcome of natural circumstances. Its not a choice because it falls under evolution. Only what works can continue to exist.

>>54837 And the best part is 95+% of the thread haven't read any of Marx's works.

>>54788 Where do you see voluntary mutually beneficial exchange in opium wars? I see none. Fighting over commerce stuff is not equal to capitalism. Pirates and robbers also use violence to acquire wealth but that's not capitalist action. People were fighting over wealth and goods millenia before capitalism emerged.

>>54804 >Except that capitalists (the people who own capital) tend to centralize their corporations so as to maximize profit extraction. Usually this results in massive misallocation of funds, i.e., stores going broke due to executives fuarrrking around If corpo/bank missallocated in capitalism it takes loses if it continues to do so for long enough it goes broke and cases to exist. In current USA cronism a.k.a. "socialism for corpos" such corpos/banks are being artificially reanimated by government transferring to them artificially created currency which is a mechanism of transfering purchasing power of people's savings and wages to corpos/banks. That's why free market captalism is honest while state controlled market leads to inequality and deepens wealth gap as it always resques companies that are wasting resources and the price of that rescue is lowering quality of life of citizens by taking away portion of their purchasing power.

>>54793 >Neither is there without the state in peace time. If there is no force to guarantee that the two parties engaging in economic exchange ('economic' being here anything that involves utility) are doing so as equals, then one or the other can subjugate the latter/former by the sheer number of the utilities that s/he possesses xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD In what alternative reality are you living in? You cannot sustain your business you are dishonest to clients. Business rivals are going to hijack all your clients on the free market as only advantage over other companies any company can have is lower prices and higher quality of goods and services they offer. State has nothing to do on the market. State introduces regulations that limit competition on the market. Limited competition means prices go up and quality goes down in long term as. Exact opposite of unregulated free market.

>>54804 >you should try reading a book some time. you should try to understand what "few" means more often than some time before posting such jewel of cringe

>>54804 >Whenever I say "capitalist" I mean somebody who owns capital Which is retarded as communist can own capital too. Does it make that socialist a capitalist? LMAO

>>54849 >only advantage over other companies any company can have is lower prices and higher quality of goods and services they offer. that was true maybe in medieval times. Today you have branding to sell trash. Marketing is beating product quality because the consumer can't act rational to save himself.

>>54852 >Today you have branding to sell trash. Marketing is beating product quality because the consumer can't act rational to save himself. So what? Higher quality and lower price still beats soykafty quality and high price over long time. Amount of money is limited (on free market that has no money printing machine) and if you spend them in dumb way you are winning dumb prize of lowering your quality of life. Even in infinity money printing environment low price high quality still wins. As you get punished even harder for bad purchasing decisions when everything skyrockets in nominal prices. In such environment people do care about prices and quality.

>Which is retarded as communist can own capital too. Does it make that socialist a capitalist? LMAO Yes lol, that's how it work. Did you think there was anything that said otherwise?

>>54854

>>54849 >In what alternative reality are you living in? I might ask you the same question? You *can* sustain your business even if you are being dishonest to clients, if you have a monopoly over some particular commodity/service or if your customers/clients are unaware or indifferent to their exploitation. Libertarian theories fall short of how reality works since they put all their faith in "rational" choice theories, because the harsh truth is that most people do not act rationally or - if they are - they act in accordance to egoist rationality, namely the kind of rationality that is indifferent to the miseries of their fellow man. Additionally, at least in the contemporary service model of economic exchange, it is a lot easier to get away with such exploitation, which the Facebook controversies of yesteryears so aptly demonstrates: if people do not know that their data is being sold without their conscious awareness, it qualifies as exploitation. And even if they were conscious of it, it is hard to change your service provider when you are dominating the market or when even all the competitors are engaging in the same business practices. Moreover, I wasn't talking about clients per se, because certain kind of economic inbalances producing certain kind of political inbalances is a universal phenomenon. I brough up the workers' plight in the wake of industrialization at the beginning of the 19th century, and you didn't even address it, let alone, it seems to me now, pay it any attention, but whatever. >as only advantage over other companies any company can have is lower prices and higher quality of goods and services they offer. I don't think so. Maybe in your utopian state of absolutely free markets, but not in the here and now. Facebook has more extensive social networks than any of the other competitors in the social media market, despite their poor quality goods (the platform is actually a downgrade from what people used to have in the good ol' times; everything is streamlined, sanitized and simplified to the extent that people's "customer experience" in terms of the quantity of functionalities which they possess, for instance, is severely affected) and even worse customer service (it is actually nonexistant; they have "outsourced" it to the customers themselves with whatever the heck those "need help? ask the community" forums/panels are: there is not a single proper FB employee from whom to ask advice or help if your group (even with ~10 000 members) has been derezzed for no real reason whatsoever, because the people you are asking advice from are just as clueless as you, since they are mere customers themselves). And even still they are the largest platform there is. How does that calculate into your models? >State has nothing to do on the market Is this a statement meant as a "matter of fact" descriptive utterance or as an "ought to" kind of normative/prescriptive utterance? I'm guessing the latter, basing my interpretation on your next three ensuing sentences. While it isn't possible to deduce an ought from an is, I think you could still work on your premises, so I'll treat the question as a statement of matter of fact. As such here, again, I'm inclined to reverse the direction of your supposed causal relation: while you assert that "politics shouldn't involve itself with the market", I'd say "markets shouldn't involve itself with politics", because that's when exploitation is made possible. There is a reason why the state introduces regulations that limit competition on the market. It has to do with the FB example I gave above, but is actually explicitly stated in the sentence you are referring to in my post, namely for the sake of "guaranteeing that the two parties engaging in economic exchange - - are doing so as equals". I'm not sure should I elaborate more on this for you, or do you know what is being implied here? The secondary purpose state regulation serves is guaranteeing the safety of its citizens from market exploitation. As I stated earlier, capitalism breeds inequality and not in a million years would it have produced something like 'worker's rights' if it weren't for the political mobilization of the workers. Of course there are examples where the business owner had introduced a number of employee benefits in oder to compete better with the other businesses (I think it was Ford who did it, but I can't be 100% sure on this one), but these aren't really addressing what is at an issue here. We're talking about worker's rights and not benefits, even if it might be hard to see the difference at first sight. ...I'll probably continue from this at a better time. g2g

>>54853 If that were true red bull wouldnt be alive. Its the most extreme example of 90% of expenses being marketing and barely anything in production. So why is noone winning selling cheaper or better?

>>54856 >I might ask you the same question? No, I deny you that right. xD > You *can* sustain your business even if you are being dishonest to clients, if you have a monopoly over some particular commodity/service Which is impossible to be kept in a long run on a free market where there is no state guaranteed monopoly like concessions, patents, licenses etc. Monopolies being unsustainable in long run without state help is a free market 101. >or if your customers/clients are unaware or indifferent to their exploitation. Well, yes dumb people get hurt. In every system. But humanity does not consist of exclusively dumb people. >>54857 >So why is noone winning selling cheaper or better? No one? I know a zillion cheaper alternatives to Red Bull many of which have better tatse. Red Bull is barely present in shops in my country. Monster hijacked that niche quite a while ago. Bigger cans for same price and more diverse flavours. Easy win here. We also have few local brands of energy drinks that exist well over a decade. So I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. World does not begin and end at USA. Heck even in the USA it has only 20 something percent of the market https://www.statista.com/statistics/306864/market-share-of-leading-energy-drink-brands-in-the-us-based-on-case-volume-sales/ Which means MAJORITY of sales DO NOT belong to Red Bull products.

>>54851 Actually, yes. Communism is just capitalism. No, I am not trolling, I mean it. No, I'm not "retarded" or "ignorant", I have probably read more theory than you. If you want to reject capitalism, you need to look into third positon worldviews, such as distributism or even certain "forms" of national socialism. Polite sage because I don't think this topic is suitable for Lainchan.

>>54848 Yes, businesses that make stupid decisions go out of business often. That doesn't stop capitalists from making stupid decisions, because their goal is to extract profit, not to run their business well.

>>54862 >because their goal is to extract profit, not to run their business well. you can't maximize profit and run business NOT well if you NOT run it well you are NOT maximizing profit out of it you seems to operate in a very strange understanding of business >>54859 >Actually, yes. Communism is just capitalism. No, I am not trolling, I mean it. And Flat Earth is the form of belief in spherical shape of the globe. *sigh*

>>54859 Biggest retard here

>>54863 >you can't maximize profit and run business NOT well wow, you must be really inexperienced. What do you think happens when the CEO decides to give himself a raise? Or when the stockholders sell the company and it's stripped for parts (metaphorically speaking)? They're maximizing their personal profit at the expense of the business.

>>54866 I'm experienced enough (I actually DO have experience in goods trading business) to know that this model would not work in free market. The only reason it works nowadays is low interest rates and govt bailing out such retards who run their business the way they do.

>>54867 >retards to be fair, in the context, they're doing the smart thing. Its the incentives that are retarded. Or malicious.

>>54867 >The only reason it works nowadays is low interest rates and govt bailing out such retards who run their business the way they do. No, they would make money even if the government never bailed them out. The reason those *businesses* still exist (in some cases) is because the gov bails them out. In other cases, like Sears, even the gov can't save them from executive malfeasance.

>>54868 They act retarded in sense their fortunes and business can disappear overnight if federal reserve decides to conduct a sane monetary policy one day. But FED and sane monetary policy in same snetence is most likely an oxymoron. With accent on "moron".

>>54869 >No, they would make money even if the government never bailed them out. Making a money and making it efficiently over long period of time are two different things. Making them in big amounts in span of many decades is impossible without high dose of efficiency. If all you do is scam people you eventually end with long piece of metal in your chest or as decoration of a street lantern eventually behind the bars or as an example why small piece of lead is harmful for human health when applied with high kinetic energy.

>>54871 >Making them in big amounts in span of many decades is impossible without high dose of efficiency. Or you corner the market, or you can sit on assets until they become more valuable, or you can chance upon an unexploited market. But yes, it is impossible to make a lot of money over time unless you run the business well somehow. But from the point of view of the capitalist, a huge payoff in the future is more risky than a big payoff now, and a lot of those guys are pretty lazy as well. >If all you do is scam people you eventually end with long piece of metal in your chest or as decoration of a street lantern eventually behind the bars or as an example why small piece of lead is harmful for human health when applied with high kinetic energy. Sure, when a socialist revolution happens. For now though, the worst you can get is a slap on the wrist.

>>54872 >Sure, when a socialist revolution happens. When socialist revolution happens everyone can decorate lanterns. We tested that in my part of the world. Actually revolutionists themselves were pretty popular street lantern decor in many countries.

>>54709 If you extract all the most moronic parts like dialectical materialism and labor theory of value, you may end up with something that could actually make successful predictions and analysis. As it is, it amounts to the same thing as Austrian school economics: The doubling down on flawed, unjustified premises, twisted into shape through the ideological equivalents of epicycles, that still consistently fall apart when exposed to reality.

>>54858 Monster is a example of rebranding > product. It was a company without success that got big after rebranding into monster and marketing heavily to gamers. The problem for upstarts in the food / drink market starts really early - can you even get on the shelves? Shelf space is limited and the existing products are mostly 3-4 megacorps running 20 brands pretending you have choice and doing their best you don't even get to hit shelves. Im all for open market but the general problem is its cheaper to rig the game than to sell a good product so anyone chasing profit will create garbage longterm. Quality can exist but its a niche market because most can't tell the difference and don't even know about civil lawsuits when corps cheat on product quality and lie even regarding specs for hardware. I believe it was plato who already said democracy fails with stupid people and the open market is just another exercise in democracy.

>>54854 >>54855 >>54851 >>54804 Captialist means: purchaser of labour power. I actually have paperback penguin Capital (cost me much less than all tomes in my native language), i am on page 120, and entire book is more than 1000 page long. I am pretty interested in marxism, and my city has hidden anarchists group that i wish to meet someday. I will monitor this thread also AMA i guess

>>54892 >Capital Just the volume 1? Also, is it good?

>>54893 I was wrong, its wordsworth and cover is pic related. Its volumes: 1 and 2. Now i read there is also vol 3 somewhere, and capital is unfinished afaik, i never read such a long book in my life, it will be quite experience for sure. I dont know if its good yet, but i like how autistic it is, first hundred pages is just estabilishing needed definitions - like what is commodity, exchange, money, labour-power value and use-value.

>>54891 >I believe it was plato who already said democracy fails with stupid people Not the only one who has stated this, but I think he has been the most prominent one to state this, although, to be pedantic, he didn't say it was because of people's stupidity, but rather due to their ignorance of the good (lack of 'civilization') and a certain kind of vanity or degeneracy (the possiblity to satisfy their caprice whenever) that ensues from this lack. But the rule of thumb in political science in general is that, with any political system, its success or downfall ultimately depends on the character of the people involved. To paraphrase Cicero, any constitution, no matter how perfect, forever remains susceptible to human fallibility. >>54858 >Well, yes dumb people get hurt. In every system. But humanity does not consist of exclusively dumb people. That wasn't what I was implying there. And I didn't mean that they were necessarily "dumb", although stupidity might naturally be part of the equation, so I think you're right in that regard. What I was referring to was more like what is sometimes called "idiocy", coming from the Greek word "idios", denoting "ignorant, private person" - someone who is uninterested in or unaware of the city-state's (or, in this case, the company's) matters. It doesn't matter matter much how dumb or smart a person is if they do not even know how they are being mistreated or abused in the first place. As a private person it is hard enough to keep up with all the dealings and things that are going on within and without the corporate or bank sectors (for instance, where and how a company is producing its commodities and where does it pay taxes to) as it is, so - if the assuming that you're holding here is that if the customers, in case they view child-labour manufactured products as unethical, for instance, and some particular company whose products they consume utilizes just such labour, perceive their current customership as (emotionally or socially) "unprofitable" or are unsatisfied with the products/services, they can merely change their seller into one that provides them their desired kind of "service" (namely, child-labour-free consumables) at every instance of purchase or transaction, then - if we are now required to do all this *without* the state's legislative intervention on the markets, how do you, first of all, think we, as private individuals, could ever manage to keep ourselves adequately informed on all these relevant facts if there were no state-imposed common rules (like banning child-labour or paying the workers a decent wage/working hours/conditions) for the economic actors, ensuring that the customers and the workers aren't being scammed or exploited by the companies? Every citizen would basically have to get a degree on manufacturing, quality-control, journalism, ecology and economics just to be able to make an informed economic decision at your local supermarket, and even then it wouldn't be enough when it comes to anything that involves computers and data, since without state intervention there's bound to be some company or actor which keeps on using exploitative, unhealthy or environmentally harmful substances/methods due to their profitability - and we actually do see this occurring in developing countries where the regulations aren't too tight in the device disassembly and clothing/textile sectors, for instance (not to mention lax attitudes towards worker's rights and safety in general). >Monopolies being unsustainable in long run without state help is a free market 101. I don't know that to be true, nor would I believe it to be so without solid arguments. What, exactly, makes it so? If I recall correct, the theory behind this claim is that, without competition, the company would not put as much effort into their product's quality, which would produce unhappy customers, thus a demand, and then a new company would emerge to meet that demand, thereby eliminating the company who held the monopoly and so on. But why, exactly, couldn't a company sustain its monopoly in your supposed free market environment? Surely the executive board on top of a company could circumvent such problems if they really wanted to by buying off or sabotaging the competition in some manner, thus maintaining their monopoly. Additionally, if it's some sort of rare commodity, like a spice or similar, the company would be free to hire merceneries to guard the area where these rare commodities reside in. >Which is impossible to be kept in a long run on a free market where there is no state guaranteed monopoly like concessions, patents, licenses etc. There are other ways of keeping a monopoly, y'know? You could buy off the competition, force them out of the markets by altering the pricing of the commodity, or - if there were no patents to guarantee that you, as the inventor, is entitled to the fair share of the profits - just engage in espionage, intellectual theft, inducing an addiction (like adding cocaine to your soft drink) on the consumers, among other such business tactics. And even if we didn't have to deal with monopolies on the free markets in the absence of state regulation (which I don't believe for one second), then there'd be the issue of cartel formation to deal with, which is currently kept at bay solely by government legislation.

>>54898 >Monopolies being unsustainable in long run without state help is a free market 101. >i don't know that to be true, nor would I believe it to be so without solid arguments. The people who create the company retire and the new batch cant sustain quality of personnel. Research is also very close to lottery. On a long enough timeline someone else will likely beat you and release a better product. >if there were no patents to guarantee that you, as the inventor, is entitled to the fair share of the profits - just engage in espionage, intellectual theft, inducing an addiction Espionage is what happens now due to patents. You steal and register first which kills them. More commonly the big ones simply buy up all patents that could create competition. Starbucks for example bought patent on perfect coffee machine and simply sealed it left unused - reason is their cheap beans cant benefit but if they left it on the market it would strengthen competition using high quality beans.

>>54903 >Espionage is what happens now due to patents. How? It makes no sense unless you are mistaking patents for trade secrets. Patents are public. Patents causing espionage makes zero sense.

>>54898 >There are other ways of keeping a monopoly, y'know? None of them is sustainable in log run. Only state regulations can guarantee environment where company is protected from competitors. >You could buy off the competition, Which does not deny access to the market for new competitor > force them out of the markets by altering the pricing of the commodity, Which does not deny access to the market for new competitor > or - if there were no patents to guarantee that you, as the inventor, is entitled to the fair share of the profits - just engage in espionage, intellectual theft, Patents do not guarantee inventors any fair share of the profit. Inventor must have a tool to enforce his patents "rights". World is full of inventors who wasted thousands of dollars going trough patent procedures only to find that they are unlikely to win against big companies just because these companies have better lawyers or can sustain costs of long lawsuits for longer without going bankrupt. Patents protecting inventor is a pipe dream. Not to mention they also are harmful in many cases when companies start to patent stuff like software ideas, mathematics formulas, proteins or obvious solutions to some quite common problems. >inducing an addiction (like adding cocaine to your soft drink) on the consumers, among other such business tactics. Drugging people against their will is a good way to bankruptcy or at least heavy financial loses. >And even if we didn't have to deal with monopolies on the free markets in the absence of state regulation (which I don't believe for one second), then there'd be the issue of cartel formation to deal with, which is currently kept at bay solely by government legislation. Name me a one black market cartel that survived for long. The only cartel that survived for long I am aware of is OPEC and it's mostly multiple states protected. There were many cartels in history in times of more free market than it is now other than that - all quickly collapsed because of infighting. Cartels are unsustainable. There are zillions examples proving that.

>>54925 What do you need to get a patent? You need years of previous research. During that timeframe anyone else can steal all your work and patent it first. The way the world currently works is gov agencies steal tech and funnel it to their corps to patent officially first. This burns all your money invested into R&D as now someone else gets sole ownership. Various big corps have been lamenting not getting enough support against this from their own agencies. Traditionally you would see news about chinese stealing us tech but its really everyone doing it including us itself. In other cases they take the open patents infinge upon them and extend the tech so the next logical step is patented by them locking the original owner out of owning the tech.

>>54929 >What do you need to get a patent? You need years of previous research. HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA no. Patents aren't granted for actual innovation; the actual truth is that the vast majority of patents are incremental, usually useless "improvements" to existing technology. When I used to prosecute patents, there would be cases in which the "invention" was just made up at the firm based on some soykafty idea from the so-called inventors. Make the claims specific (and useless) enough, and voila you can get a patent. The patent system is a complete joke. t. actual IP professional.

>>54930 Those incremental steps take research too... the more things develop the slower it is to progress further. And as said the most important part is whether you can roadblock because the tech will require your step to be usable. If there is no good alternative you won. Secondary what you describe is also another sector. Corps just write up a lot of fake patents to build a patent wall to scare off people who don't have enough money to deal with it. Its basically burning money to build a paywall for market entry.

>>54936 > Corps just write up a lot of fake patents to build a patent wall to scare off people who don't have enough money to deal with it. Its basically burning money to build a paywall for market entry. And this is why patents must die if we wanna free market

In a "true free market" there would just become a market for all the functions that the state currently does for the market system. The only difference would be that it's called the McJustice Department.

>>54944 Gangs continue to operate. Where cops turn useless people pay protection money to gangs as replacement. Of course its all dressed up to fit modern times. Its not a gang its a "security business" now. Decentralization is also a matter of at what scale you look at it, whats centralized on state level can be seen as decentralized among governments. I.E. electricity is government policy but governments rule different and france&germany are right now paying for their save the planet hardliner stances with having to buy electricity from romania&co running outdated nuclear reactors build in soviet times to meet their demand. All the preaching in the world can't prevent market realities to manifest.

When did you realize op was a schizo

>>54944 >The only difference would be that it's called the McJustice Department. And there would be competition. If McJustice gives biased rulings then use JusticeKing next time.

>>54709 it's another poop throwing thread

>>54990 in actual real life where this kind of thing happens, the "competition" comes in the form of gang wars. >If McJustice gives biased rulings then use JusticeKing next time. both are gonna defer to the highest bidder anyway.

>>55022 >the "competition" comes in the form of gang wars. War is a waste of resources and defense is cheaper than attack. >both are gonna defer to the highest bidder anyway. Then don't use either. You understand that in a free market legal system both parties need to agree on which court to use. Biased judges can't survive because no one will use them.

>>55023 >Then don't use either. Kentucky Fried Justice.

>>55023 >War is a waste of resources and defense is cheaper than attack. That doesn't seem to stop people from engaging in war. >Then don't use either. So don't get any justice? >You understand that in a free market legal system both parties need to agree on which court to use. if you try to sue a corp and they refuse to use any court but the one biased towards them, who wins? Anyway, who is enforcing this? >Biased judges can't survive because no one will use them. Except those whom the judge is biased towards. these are all problems with the current state-based justice system too, by the way. It's just stupid to think monopolies and biased law would magically disappear in a free market system.

>>54793 >There is no voluntary exchange of capital in war. Who do you think is selling these wars? Weapons manufacturers make money off of war.

>>55026 >That doesn't seem to stop [stupid] people from engaging in war. Meanwhile the smart people/countries pay for a minimal deterrence and then focus on building trade and economic value. >if you try to sue a corp and they refuse to use any court but the one biased towards them, who wins? You agree on which court to use before you have any disagreements, dummy. It will be part of the contract. >Except those whom the judge is biased towards. If a corp insists on using a biased court then nobody will do business with them and they close. Another effect of having no government and no taxes is that companies need customers to survive. >It's just stupid to think monopolies and biased law would magically disappear in a free market system. Perhaps I've thought about this more than you.

>>55027 >Who do you think is selling these wars? Weapons manufacturers make money off of war. Not that lain. Who is paying for it though? Wars are funded by involuntary taxes and inflation of involuntary fiat money (which you need to pay the damn taxes). Offensive wars wouldn't exist if citizens had to pay for them directly (instead of in 20 years when inflation hits) and had the option of saying "lol no" (instead of just voting for a different guy in 4 years).

>>55029 I fuarrrked up pretty hard, I didn't think through my post and thought I was on 4chan. Here's an article on the war economy, as an apology https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/21/military-spending-defense-contractors-profiting-from-war-weapons-sales/39092315/ Otherwise, please ignore my half-baked misquote

>>55029 Even just take away inflation. The Afghanistan war cost $400B a year. If each US citizen had to pay an extra $2000 a year in tax just for that dumb war how long would it (and the Bush presidency) have lasted?

>>54709 >When did you realise Marxism was the only method capable of explaining the cultural and societal decay of bourgeois society, and the only weapon capable of abolishing it? It was after i looked at real life, at how people live, work together, reach goals, that i realised the worth of community, of knowing the people around you, and being held accountable by the people around youl. And i also realised the ultimate truth, that every empire is ultimately doomed to fail, no matter it's ideological or religious principles. History repeats itself on a grand scale, and we as individuals are fortunate to be small enough in the grand scheme of things, that we can weather the tides. The most important thing in the world is having a community, and sticking with it. Be it a family, a tribe, a village or an organisation. Cooperate, coordinate, survive, build, defend what you made. Nothing unites people as much as a struggle against a common foe, a struggle for survival. If you didn't guess it by now, i do not think highly of marxism, or any other ideology in general. Ideologies, just like religions, are there to control and steer large masses of people and harness the might of the mob. Real strength is born from actual struggle.

>>55028 >You agree on which court to use before you have any disagreements, dummy. It will be part of the contract. OHHH, so you mean it'll be like arbitration is now, where you can't get a job unless you agree to settle disputes in a court the corp owns. (also not all economic activity comes with a contract) >If a corp insists on using a biased court then nobody will do business with them and they close. Or they force everybody to use that court because they're a big fish. >Another effect of having no government and no taxes is that companies need customers to survive. They need to figure out some way to take money away from their customers, sure. >Perhaps I've thought about this more than you. Perhaps Karl Marx thought about it more than you. Amazingly, that doesn't mean he's automatically correct.

>>54709 Name and artist of the cunny in the OP?

>>54709 And how do you explain the cultural and societal decay of communism? The communist ideal have been lost under Lenin when he made the new economy to end the famine. Then it became a good old dictatorship and then an autocratic corrupted state, until Brezhnev where it just stopped making people work and it just lived off momentum and import, eventually collapsing. Modern communists are repulsed by the idea of work and just want to live off public assistance. They have no problem with a bourgois state, with money existing, or corpos controling free speech. They want the workers disarmed and central banking. They even are anti work. >>54732 >Marx held a consistent view that our human nature was expressed in a drive to spontaneously and creatively produce products This is something anyone who worked a single day in his life know to be wrong, but how could Karl knew this? People don't work and produce soykaf because they are driven to do it, but because they want food, clothes, houses and all sort of things, and they have to do it or to do things they can trade for if they want to do it. No one like to operate the machine and no one will do it unless he gain something from it. You don't want to go in the coal mine, I don't want to, no one want and no one will go in there unless they can get something in return. This is human nature. From each according to his mean to each according to his needs is a beautiful slogan, but incompatible with the material conditions.

>>55046 >Or they force everybody to use that court because they're a big fish. Monopolies are created by government interventions. No government means no monopolies means companies need to compete for customers and workers. >They need to figure out some way to take money away from their customers, sure. There is no "take". Everytime you make a purchase you choose to give your money to the seller. It is your decision, you are in charge. If you are so far down the "i have no free will i'm a helpless victim" soy greased rabbit hole then you're just going to be a loser under any political system and none of this matters. >Perhaps Karl Marx thought about it more than you A breaded loser who never had a job or ran a business or held a political office and lived 150 years ago under a monarchy and before basically all the technology that runs a modern economy was invented. Yeah, that guy is really not as relevant as you think.

>>55109 No government mean the Exon security response unit will deploy tanks and drones to in the oilfields. It mean Amazon will pay thugs to burn mom and dad shop. It mean Microsoft will sink any competing OS ...wait...

>>55120 >government creates monopolies <yeah but without government the monopolies will run everything Can you spot your error?

>>55124 Name one monopoly that isn't state enforced. It's true without government, the cartel, or corpo, or the local religious/political group of armed people would form their own states and give themselves all rights, but monopolies can only exist if a state make one.

>>55131 >Name one monopoly that isn't state enforced. google