There is Marx and there is Communism

I kind of thought about it for some time and notices that Marx's ideas are actually quiet different from Communism or Marxism. First there was Karl Marx the economist. And he coined the term communist in his economic boo Das Kapital. He did not called for revolution to overthrow capitalism. Instead he saw communism as one of stages of economic development. Marx put that something like that. First there was feudalism It evolved into Market Economy Then market economy gave birth to capitalism In time capitalism will give birth to socialism and later communist. To Marx these were just inevitable stages of economic development. Stages that all countries will go through and eventually reach communist as an inevitable end point. According to Marx communism will happen once sufficient level of economic abundance is achieved. Surely not earlier that that. Marx only cautioned that because transition to communism would require too much of a change to existing mindset a revolution may be needed. However later came various Marxists, communists and such. They invented something loosely 'based' on Marx theories. They created revolutionary communism that called for global revolution and then establishment of communist by decree of new government. Marx would criticize this form of Marxism and say it is physically impossible to establish communist tike that, without sufficient level of economic development to support it. however Marxists would just ignore him and continue with their communism. USSR called this revised theory Marxism-Leninism This Marxism-Leninism was tried in many places and failed just as Marx predicted. Then Marxists, instead of actually reading Das Kapital and understanding it, simply revised Marxism-Leninism into neo leftism. However back to original Marx theories. So far Marx predictions came true. for socialism at least. During his time there was no welfare, however since this time it was established. Western market societies reached a point where they all established a comprehensive welfare state. Which is a definition of socialism according to Marx. Next would be communism and I think western market economies are already close to it. There is abundance of everything and price of labor is getting so low, working becomes uneconomicaal. What is next for society if not communist according to Marx.

>He did not called for revolution to overthrow capitalism. I thought he thought class struggle to be the motor of history, indirectly encouraging insurrections. >According to Marx communism will happen once sufficient level of economic abundance is achieved. Surely not earlier that that. The premise that communism emerges as a natural stage is interesting. But "a sufficient level of economic abundance" seems unattainable. First, with economic abundance comes population growth, again causing scarcity. Second, scarcity is intimately embedded in economy, so that economics is defined as the study of "allocation of scarce resources." Finally, his idea of economic abundance is framed in an industrial stage that experienced an abundance of cheap energy. Today we know that's unsustainable and the economy will begin to contract. Maybe this would be the inflection point for communism, but the overpopulation and all the infrastructure in place which relies on economic growth will mean that the apparent abundance will sooon evaporate. And I'm not sure whether this was Marx's idea, but central economic planning turned out in practice to be a suboptimal idea. On the other hand, I read somewhere that energy decline may cause nationalization of resources, causing states to control the main economic motors, namely fossil fuels.

>And I'm not sure whether this was Marx's idea, but central economic planning turned out in practice to be a suboptimal idea. IIRC the typical reasons given why central planning doesn't work in theory are pretty much bunk. In practice, the reason central planning fails is because of political blind spots (a problem experienced in capitalist enterprises as well) and lack of information. The lack of information may have been a major shortcoming in the 20th century, but today it would hardly be a problem. Marx definitely envisioned central planning, although he didn't flesh out his idea of what communism/socialism would look like very much. He was much more interested in analyzing capitalism. He also certainly, explicitly, called for revolution. He after all did write the communist manifesto. People often say that Marx's revolution didn't come, but it actually did. Many people don't know how close the rest of Europe came to full-on communist revolution in 1917. It just wasn't successful, and Marx didn't predict the rise of fascism as a reactionary counterbalance years later. >>64242 >Western market societies reached a point where they all established a comprehensive welfare state. Which is a definition of socialism according to Marx. This is plain wrong. It is clear you haven't actually read any Marx or even any summaries of Marx.

>>64242 Karl Marx praised communism "the real appropriation of the human essence on the part of man and for the sake of man, the return of man to himself as a social being, thus as a human man" - Private Property And Communism (Karl Marx, Selected Writings)

>>64246 >the real appropriation of the human essence on the part of man and for the sake of man, the return of man to himself as a social being, thus as a human man Even further Marx writes "Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution."

Central Planning was invented by Leninists even after the original revolutionary communism. That is when they tried establish communism by decree and failed. Then they try to craft it by bootstraps. In fact most Marxist stuff comes from the followers as they were trying to invent ways for communism to work without the sufficient abundance.Summaries are also written by Marxists so they are not real representation of Marx. Marx said he is not a Marxist, because he could not agree with what his Marxist followers attempted. Kind of a troll he was. You should only read the original Das Kapital and absolutely nothing else. Original Marxian (we should call it that to distinguish from Marxistm) theories do not go that far. By communism he simply meant that stuff will become free. Online a lot of things already free. In a way Internet is a first section of the communism Marx envisioned and USA created it. This is probably the biggest irony of the world. It will get more like internet in future, stuff will become free, it is inevitable. Conservatives resist it but economic inevitability will eventually make it a reality

>>64256 >Marx said he is not a Marxist, When? He was certainly an avowed communist. >By communism he simply meant that stuff will become free. Lmao get a grip

Marx is a fascinating historical artifact in that he shows what you get when you give a fairly smart guy all the wrong tools to analyze history, from materialism to Hegelianism to LTOV. In equal parts interesting and comical.

Marx himself stated "If anything is for certain, it is that I am not a Marxist." He flat out denied the existence of something called Marxism. Communism quickly degenerated into a fanboy cult around Marx, elevating him and "Marxism" into a "science" etc. etc. This is what screwed over, and continues to screw over, communist movements because they are, in effect, nothing more than a dogmatic cult built up around fanboy Marx worship. A classic example of this was the Soviet government setting prices for consumer goods entirely based upon the labor-time expended into their manufacture because they believed this was the only objective way to determine value. Nowhere does Marx advise doing this, and he'd probably oppose it even if he did endorse a labor theory of value. Even though this method of determining prices did not work, the Soviets persisted with it well into the 1980s.

>>64256 >You should only read the original Das Kapital and nothing else I disagree. Firstly, the English and later German editions of Das Kapital were heavily edited by Engels, and he was the one who edited the second and third volumes. The first German edition of Das Kapital is the best, however an English translation of that does not exist and we're left with the version Engels butchered. I'd also argue that the Gundrisse, Marx's notes before beginning work on Kapital, are a good source. But stay the hell away from the German Ideology, Critique of Political Economy etc. these are immature works Marx later disowned but nevertheless are held up by self-described "Marxists" as his essential works, including Leninist Stalinists and Western Marxists.

>>64245 >IRC the typical reasons given why central planning doesn't work in theory are pretty much bunk. Well, as the Chinese point out, a market and planning aren't exclusive, as many large corporations create plans despite playing by market rules. The issue with a Leninist style command economy is that its simply inefficient for a politburo made up of a handful of people to manage the entire economy of the world's largest country. That and central planning relies on the political leadership having wise, well thought out, strategic plans in the long run, whereas Soviet planning (especially under Brezhnev) was just total short sighted trash. >He after all did write the communist manifesto. Some historians argue that most of it was actually written by Engels. >Marx didn't predict the rise of fascism as a reactionary counterbalance years later. Another thing Marx didn't predict is that immigrant labor from third world colonies would eventually replace the traditional European working class. That right there is the single biggest reason his big revolution never happened while third world countries remain unstable and explosive places.

>>64314 > That right there is the single biggest reason his big revolution never happened while third world countries remain unstable and explosive places. That wasn't really a thing circa 1917-1930. The stalling of the big revolution was for different reasons.

>>64314 >a market and planning aren't exclusive, as many large corporations create plans despite playing by market rules A business planning its own operations does not disprove the point that you can't centrally plan the economy as a whole. When a business fuarrrks up its plan it loses money and faces the consequences directly. When the government fuarrrks up its plan it is everyone else who suffers. The planners in their ivory tower have no way of knowing that something is wrong until peasants start dropping dead in the street. >That and central planning relies on the political leadership having wise... This is a cope. Even if you had a magic uncorruptible AI with unlimited processing power central planning still does not work in principle because you need prices to know if resources are going where they are most valued. Prices are a distributed, collaborative effort formed between competing interests. A centralized bureaucracy cannot make value decisions on behalf of everyone else in society. >but the soviets.... The USSR was still operating inside a global economy with external price information which allowed them to muddle through with only a handful of genocidal famines. >That right there is the single biggest reason his big revolution never happened Marx's prediction that the working class will revolt in industrialized nations failed a long time before mass immigration. This is exactly the reason mussolini quit the italian socialist party, he realized that living conditions for the proletariat was rising so fast under capitalism they had no desire to revolt. >Marx didn't predict is that immigrant labor from third world colonies would eventually replace the traditional European working class Stuff like brexit hysteria is how you know the modern left has been completely captured by globalist corporate interests and don't actually give a fuarrrk about the working class.

>>64242 Its funny how you think you are in possesion of the truth about marx when is evident you dont know a lot about it nor marxism leninism nor this topic in general, just by saying putting his thesis on revolution as a secundary and accidental may be may be not scenario, when even a superficial reading of the communist manifesto would prove you wrong. And that he would approve welfare state is also wrong, nor any reformist kind of approach, which is one of the characteristics that differentiates him from utopian socialists that thought that the bourgeoise would willingly renounce on the ownership of means of production. Reformism came by as a consequence of electoral success of communist parties which produced a large number of "socialist" functionaries that did not want to risk their accommodated position with state salary and all.

>>64348 >JUST READ MARX You guys are literally just fundamentalists with a different bible.

>>64345 >This is a cope. Even if you had a magic uncorruptible AI with unlimited processing power central planning still does not work in principle because you need prices to know if resources are going where they are most valued. Why? It seems to me that, even if we presume markets are perfectly efficient (they're not), there's no reason in principle why the same information could not be gained in some other way. >A centralized bureaucracy cannot make value decisions on behalf of everyone else in society. No, but it is certainly possible in principle to predict demand and plan production to meet it. An example of a sector where the market model utterly fails is the power grid: electricity production needs to almost exactly match demand, 24/7, and in practice the only way to do that is to actually measure how much electricity people use and try to predict it. Pricing models are actually designed around getting people to use less electricity so that the system can stay more stable, they're not used to signal value. >The USSR was still operating inside a global economy with external price information which allowed them to muddle through with only a handful of genocidal famines. It's not like they looked at the price of pickles in China and decided to set that price in the USSR. >he realized that living conditions for the proletariat was rising so fast under capitalism they had no desire to revolt. Wasn't Mussolini's coup mostly driven by working class unrest?

>>64353 >there's no reason in principle why the same information could not be gained in some other way. You can't read people's minds. >Pricing models are actually designed around getting people to use less electricity so that the system can stay more stable, they're not used to signal value. Look at it this way, if there were no prices and electricity was free for the consumer, everyone would take as much as they can. A central planner has no way to know who actually needs it and who to cut off. The same applies to every other limited resource. You can't plan consumption on behalf of other people. To measure value you need prices. >It's not like they looked at the price of pickles in China and decided to set that price in the USSR. The price of commodities on international markets will give you clues. e.g. do I use steel or aluminum for this construction project? Well the americans are exporting steel for this price and aluminum for this price...

>>64354 >You can't read people's minds. Why do you need to? >Look at it this way, if there were no prices and electricity was free for the consumer, everyone would take as much as they can. They would take as much as they could use. In practice people treat it like an infinite resource anyway. >A central planner has no way to know who actually needs it and who to cut off. *everyone* needs it. When planning for contingencies like rolling blackouts, typically they just try to keep major hospitals online. If they based this on how much people are willing to pay and nothing else, you'd end up with rich neighborhoods mysteriously needing electricity way more than poor neighborhoods. >To measure value you need prices. [citation needed] >The price of commodities on international markets will give you clues. Not great ones, since internal supply/demand is different from external supply/demand. If you're not interested in importing or exporting your steel, then it doesn't matter at all how much america is exporting their steel for.

>*everyone* needs it what is need ?

>>64350 I've learned that most Christians don't actually know what's in the bible themselves. Most "Marxists" have barely read any actual Marx either... yes you appear to be onto something there, Lain.

Fascism is the natural evolution. Communism doesn't exist. Even in many "communist" countries eventually turn into a form of pseudo-fascism. The closest thing to National Socialism today is the DPRK.

>>64350 well, i answered op who was saying what marx thought or did not thought, so i answered accordingly.

>>64354 >To measure value you need prices. Wrong. A price measures nothing except who has more negotiating power and is thereby able to force the other to accept their skewed terms.

Communists ruin everything, we'd be halfway to a utopia by now if it wasn't for the commies. And each commie will say: It not my fault, I'm a Marxist! It's the fault of those awful leninists! And the leninists will say "it's not my fault! its the fault of the stalinists! And the stalnists will say "its not my fault! it's the fault of the trotskyists!" And the trotskyist will say "its not my fault! it's the fault of those awful peepeepoopoo-ists!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies Every single group on this list will point to the others and say "ITS THEM! THEY'RE THE REASON COMMUNISM HAS NEVER WORKED!" Anyone with a brain can see communism in any form is not a viable system, partially due to the endless infighting.

>>64509 >modernist philosophy isn't to blame, its those pesky communists who are at fault!

>>64274 >Marx is a fascinating historical artifact in that he shows what you get when you give a fairly smart guy all the wrong tools to analyze history, from materialism to Hegelianism to LTOV. In equal parts interesting and comical. While no replies, this should have been /thread. To elaborate some more: - A fundamental assumption of his, the Labor Theory of Value (of part 1 of Das Kapital) is plain wrong (yt: watch?v=vXzvx3wdqRk) - But why its popularity? (aier org/article/das-karl-marx-problem/) >The Soviet Union played a primary role in elevating Marx into the intellectual mainstream - But do Marxist thinkers agree? >Curiously, the initial reactions we’ve seen from Marxists reveal an internal schism in their ranks. About half of the Marxist respondents consider our finding obvious, even questioning why we would go to such lengths to “prove” that which they already knew. [...] [T]he other half [...] deny the role of Lenin’s government in mainstreaming the Marxist intellectual tradition. - Who then may be the alternative primary influence? >The favored candidates so far are Marx-adjacent political parties in pre-1917 Germany, and the founding of the western Marxist Frankfurt School in the 1920s, although the empirical evidence for these theories is underwhelming compared to the Bolshevik effect in 1917. marxists btfo >>64348 >Reformism came by as a consequence of electoral success of communist parties which produced a large number of "socialist" functionaries that did not want to risk their accommodated position with state salary and all Could you provide some research that supports this?

>>64510 Communism is a thoroughly modernist philosophy. >>64516 >But why its popularity? It has a lot to offer to a lot of different groups. It promises power and wealth to those at the bottom of the social ladder, it gives intellectuals a stimulating theoretical system to explain all of history and the world, and it can be a highly valuable tool for shaky elites who want to engage in some of the good old high/low vs middle shenanigans. There's always power in toppling established social hierarchies.

>>64519 >Communism is a thoroughly modernist philosophy. Yeah, that's the joke. >guy complains that Marxists all blame each other >doesn't think to consider how modernists blame marxists

>>64355 >They would take as much as they could use. In practice people treat it like an infinite resource anyway. You don't have infinite resources though. At some point you need to draw a line under energy and allocate resources to other things too like food, medicine, transport etc. How do you decide which resources go where without prices? Not very well is the answer. You monopolize the means of production in the hands of a military dictatorship you end up with the biggest military in the world and the first country into space but meanwhile your citizens eat tree bark out of starvation. Shocked pikachu face. >If they based this on how much people are willing to pay and nothing else, you'd end up with rich neighborhoods mysteriously needing electricity way more than poor neighborhoods. You have to remember that the market is a democracy where everyone votes with their dollars. Only the companies who can use the resource to provide the most value to the most people can outbid everyone else and still make a profit. That is the whole point of pricing. >[citation needed] What do you think we're talking about right now? I know I'm not going to convince you that your god is fake but you should at least make an effort. >>64497 >A price measures nothing except who has more negotiating power and is thereby able to force the other to accept their skewed terms. You're forgetting that money needs to come from somewhere.

>>64552 >You're forgetting that money needs to come from somewhere. A rich person might be able to outbid a hospital for electricity. But if all he's doing is burning capital without making any return then at some point he will run out and the situation will correct itself.

>>64552 Hello Price-anon. (And >>64353 since I have to split the post due to length.) I am sympathetic to the salvagable portions of your position. Hayek was a genius to recognize prices as Information. However in your blind idolotry of the measurement instrument you neglect to pay attention to what, precisely, it is measuring. You can stick a thermometer in direct sunlight and take a measurement, and that measurement is indeed Information - but that Information is nothing but the temperature of a thermometer in direct sunlight; you can not improperly generalize that Information to the general air temperature in shade, for example. A price measures nothing but what a person (or group of people) is willing to pay for something. And yes, sometimes, when used properly, and you get lucky, that price winds up being an excellent approximation of the 1st-order use-value of that something. However, all too often, that price instead winds up being an excellent approximation of the negotiating/bullying power asymmetries between the parties. This price is still Information, and it still means something - but not what you think it means. This price does not show what things are valuable; what things that if a society encourages it will grow and prosper and thrive. This price instead shows the opposite, what things are powerful, what things that can destroy and cannibalize a society to maximize their own power and control. >A rich person might be able to outbid (in price) a hospital for electricity. Correct. >But if all he's doing is burning capital (i.e. price) without making any return then "at some point" he will run out and the situation will correct itself. Correct. >(Implied) Therefore, any rich person outbidding hospitals will be making returns (in price). Correct. >(Implied) And those returns (in price) will be valuable for society. WRONG. Here is how your situation will play out: The rich person will outbid (in price) the hospital for electricity, not because he needs the electricity, but just because he can. So he will start losing capital (i.e. price) as you point out, and "at some point" he will run out, but not NOW. And NOW, there's a huge shortage of hospital services. So the rich person will open a soykafty competing hospital and offer those services with the electricity he is buying. If both hospitals had electricity NOW no one would use the soykafty hospital, but because the good hospital has no electricity they have no choice but to use the soykafty hospital NOW. And if both hospitals had equal starting capital NOW (i.e. price) then the good hospital, being a better hospital, could afford to outbid (in price) the rich person for electricity NOW; but because the rich person has a starting capital advantage (i.e. price) NOW, the better hospital is unable to apply its advantage NOW until "at some point" the rich person runs out of capital (i.e. price). Thus, the rich person is NOW making a return (in price). That return (in price) is still Information, but it is no longer measuring what you intend it to measure - who has the better hospital. It is instead measuring the power imbalance of the rich person to act as a loss leader NOW until "at some point" comes. And the problem is, that power imbalance is so strong, that NOW "at some point" will NEVER come, because the rich person NOW is making a return (in price), and so will NEVER run out of capital (in price). >But LECI-anon, if this obviously unjust scenario happened, the good hospital still has the potential to make profit, so either the power plant would choose to sell to them anyway at the lower price, or someone else would start a new power plant which would increase the supply until the good hospital could afford it. That's true Price-anon. If there's just the one rich person, then although the market will be damaged it will eventually route around the damage. But there's not just one rich person, there's an entire caste of rich people. So here's how your situation will play out: The soykafty hospital rich person will, seeing that despite his outbidding the good hospital is still managing to get electricity, call up his friend, coal mine rich person. "Hey bro, this upstart power company is cutting into my profits, stop selling them coal." "Sure thing bro." And yes, once again, this move will start losing capital (i.e. price) which "at some point" will run out. But, once again, there's a huge shortage of hospital services NOW, and so the rich cartel will be able to make a return NOW, and so "at some point" will NEVER come. >But LECI-anon, there could be a competing coal plant too. Yes, there could. And there could be a trucker rich person that cuts off deliveries from that competing coal plant too. And so the game will play out across the entire market graph, like a more interesting version of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_problem or 囲碁, with one side trying to form a living group while the rich cartel tries to cut it off from just one essential nutrient, bringing death by Liebig's law of the minimum no matter how efficient and superior the rest of the organism is compared to the rich cartel. And maybe, the more efficient organism will win. But maybe not. And even if it does win, and amass a profit today, it's just as likely to, tomorrow, use that profit to kill off its own more efficient competition instead. And even if the more efficient organisms consistently manage to win "at some point", all the cutthroat fighting that they have to do to get there is itself constantly damaging and introducing inefficiencies into the market. And so you see, while Hayek's genius in recognizing prices as Information is indeed the correct beginning; it is only the beginning, not the end.

And so you see, while Hayek's genius in recognizing prices as Information is indeed the correct beginning; it is only the beginning, not the end. >>64552 >You have to remember that the market is >where >votes with their dollars. Correct. >a democracy >everyone Incorrect. You were close to realizing something important but you missed it, so I'll bring you back to it. Prices are Information. Votes are ALSO Information. Choices, in general (e.g. voting with your feet), are Information. However what to DO with the Information is its own question. There are many ways to "count the votes", so to speak. A monarchy weighs the vote of one man the highest. A democracy weighs the votes of all men (except blacks, women, children, immigrants, those judged criminals by the state, etc.) equally. An aristocracy is in-between. Prices bifurcate the same way. Only if everyone has (relatively) equal money are Prices a democracy. If one guy has (most) all the money Prices are a monarchy. In-between, if (most) all money is concentrated in a rich cartel, Prices are an aristocracy. >But LECI-anon, since everyone has an "equal opportunity" to earn money Prices are inherently a democracy. No, because by the above hospital example money (capital) forms a feedback loop where those that start with more money (capital) have a compounding advantage and thus extra opportunity over those that start with less. So, we agree that Information is key. However we also see that there are many sources (prices, votes, choices) of Information, and many ways to weight (monarchy, democracy, aristocracy) (including limited and/or localized and/or constitutional sub-variants) those sources of Information. And here is where >>64353 comes in: >there's no reason in principle why the same Information could not be gained in some other way. Correct. >An example of a sector where the market model utterly fails is the power grid >since internal supply/demand is different from external supply/demand Correct - different types of goods may work best with different systems of Information. So somehow "we" must make a meta-choice i.e. a PLAN about which sources of Information to use and how to weight them. >A business planning its own operations does not disprove the point that you can't centrally plan the economy as a whole. This is a di-lemma Price-anon. It takes an iq over 100 to understand a di-lemma, so pay close attention. You have 2 choices: (That's where the "di-" in di-lemma comes from.) Horn #1 : You assert that (someone in a) business can successfully (centrally) plan its own operations. Fine, then by the same argument, you have proven that someone can successfully centrally plan the economy as a whole. Just as workers in a business can cede planning authority to a CEO or board so can citizens of a country cede planning authority to a president or congress. Horn #2 : You assert that no one can successfully centrally plan the economy as a whole. Fine, then by the same argument, you have proven that no one can successfully centrally plan a business. Just as you argue the economy must be broken down into prices, so must a business break down all its decisions into internal prices with no CEO or board making decisions. You are free to make either choice in the di-lemma, I cannot force you to choose a particular one. But you must choose one, and whichever one you choose you concede something: Horn #1 : You concede that it is ethical for governments to centrally plan economies. Horn #2 : You concede that private ownership (and thus central planning) of businesses is always unethical and only worker co-ops are valid. >When a business fuarrrks up its plan it loses money and faces the consequences directly. No, businesses shunt consequences to externalities, e.g. in the above hospital example. >When the government fuarrrks up its plan it is everyone else who suffers. By this argument (Horn #2 of the di-lemma) when the management fuarrrks up its plan it is the employees and customers who suffer. >The (public) planners in their (public) ivory tower have no way of knowing that something is wrong until peasants start dropping dead in the street. The same applies to private planners in private ivory towers. >(Implied) But LECI-anon, employees and customers can leave bad management. Citizens can emigrate from bad governments, but that's only a solution in the absence of rich and anti-competitive cartels. See the above hospital example. So somehow "we" must make a meta-choice i.e. a PLAN about which sources of Information to use and how to weight them. Woud anyone like to voice chat this weekend?

>>64552 >At some point you need to draw a line under energy and allocate resources to other things too like food, medicine, transport etc. How do you decide which resources go where without prices? "Hmm it appears that it would be good for society if hospitals still had electricity when power outages are necessary, even if somebody else were willing to bid a higher price so their mansion could keep the lights on" -- any reasonable human. >You have to remember that the market is a democracy where everyone votes with their dollars. So some people are more equal than others, huh? >Only the companies who can use the resource to provide the most value to the most people can outbid everyone else and still make a profit. Except when all kinds of realistic market failure modes happen, sure. > I know I'm not going to convince you that your god is fake but you should at least make an effort. Right back at you buddy. You have basically just said this whole time "price is the only way to measure value" without actually justifying that claim, or really addressing any refutations. >>64559 >>64560 Holy based

>To Marx these were just inevitable stages of economic development. I don't believe Marx believed socialism/communism to be a literal historical inevitability, He wasn't that mechanical with his historical analysis that he thought that when [A.] ran it's course to it's logical end [B.] would most certainly lock into place. Not Marx, but by the tail-end of his life Engels actually diverged from the duo's original thesis of a terminal economic crisis of capitalism being inevitable and unrecoverable fro, He essentially began to believe that the state actually could keep capitalism running via economic intervention, Which is what we have basically seen again and again since the great-depression. >So far Marx predictions came true. for socialism at least. During his time there was no welfare, however since this time it was established. Western market societies reached a point where they all established a comprehensive welfare state. Which is a definition of socialism according to Marx. Marx used Communism and socialism interchangeably, it only separated into two 'phases' later under the Leninists, and by his own definition the west is most def not under that. >However later came various Marxists, communists and such. They invented something loosely 'based' on Marx theories. They created revolutionary communism that called for global revolution and then establishment of communist by decree of new government. I'd say the fundamental flaw in all 'Marxists that came after Marx' was the fact that no-matter how hard they may have fought against it with their 'materialism' Marxism/Socialism/Communism as a general movement essentially abandoned the view of classes as simply descriptive terms for people's relation to production and began to turn them into moral categories, And then turned Marxism itself into a sort of political theology of good and evil. With it's own MetaNarrative/Eschatology [What will happen], The proletarians and non-proletariat being 'good' and 'evil' respectively. Once Marxism [the movement] had devolved from a material analysis into moral-grandstanding, this made it doubly easy for it begin it's second degeneration, Which as some Neo-React/NRx people like to call it i will refer to as 'Bio-Leninism', Essentially, Marxism as a movement stopped representing only/primarily the proletariat industrial class and essentially began representing any person or 'grouping' here or there that had 'some sort of gripe' with modernity to gain the popular support to form a revolutionary-republic The end stage of this was Khrushchev declaring the U.S.S.R. not a proletarian state but a 'state of all people', And the Maoist model of the 'peoples republic' We can see this bickering over who or who-not Marxists should represent and who and who isn't 'evil' even today, There was a blow-up on philosophy-bro twitter a while ago about 'service workers', And where they lie within Marxist analysis or whatever, The two positions essentially boiled down to this. >'Service workers are workers' - Because they also 'suffer' under capitalism. >'Service workers aren't workers' - Because they don't literally create commodities or aid in their transportation - and this makes service workers Fascist, Racist, Imperialist, Stolen valour workers etc. Note, In the second option, the second the 'service workers' cease to be proletarian they immediately are kicked from grace, and essentially become 'evil'

>>64560 I'd be open to voice chat if you got a discord server

>>64724 In line with this good/evil moralism is this elevation of Marx to almost cult like status with Marxism increasingly resembling a kind of secularized Christianity complete with a messianic founder and a set of canonical texts that are incapable of error.

>>64800 Yes, Even look at the schism's that are found within dogmatic Tank ideology. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-ThirdWorldism Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-GonzaloThought Real People's front of Judea, Judean People's Front hours up in here. The most obvious parallel is to the entire of the 'cathedral' of Liberal ideology, But even that doesn't make sense, Since unlike liberalism, which has almost total global saturation and essentially has every country on earth except the communist pacific rim states paying at least lip service to it - Anyone outside of said communist pacific rim in almost any other part of the world is seen as bizarre at best, and functionally insane at worst. I think while the 'left of centre libs' [i.e 'breadtube'] are basically some sort of recuperation process for the system/liberalism where they after ~2020'ish, basically totally abandoned all the UMM GO ORGANISE UNIONS YA'AL and 'Read theory' and have just totally conceded to voting for Biden and Liberalism for the forseeable future. The self proclaimed communists meanwhile operate like some sort of collapse cult at this point where they seem to think that X,Y,Z, political or economic collapse will vindicate them and allow them to inherit the world.

>>64559 >>64560 >(Implied) And those returns (in price) will be valuable for society. >WRONG. In the absence of theft and fraud, the only reason you pay for a service is because it is valuable (to you). >rich guy sets up competing hospital If he can pay more for electricity and still provide hospital services then that is a win for efficiency. If he is not making a profit then that is unsustainable and we already covered that. >Here is how your situation will play out:... You are forgetting that the higher price the second hospital is paying will signal the market to produce more energy to chase the higher profits. So when supply increases enough to cover both hospitals they will now have to compete directly, and the hospital with the worst service/higher prices will lose out. >But LECI-anon, since... The rest of your posts is just you sucking off your own starwmen. If I didn't say it then I don't have to defend it. >>64561 >"Hmm it appears that it would be good for society if... The point is that what you regard as "good" here is the actual outcome on a longer timeline. So what is the problem? >So some people are more equal than others, huh? That is how reality works. Some people are born taller and some people are born with higher IQs. The point of the free market is that you gain money by serving other people. >Except when all kinds of realistic market failure modes happen, sure. We can't have a discussion if you can't elaborate. >You have basically just said this whole time "price is the only way to measure value" <Look at it this way, if there were no prices and electricity was free for the consumer, everyone would take as much as they can. A central planner has no way to know who actually needs it and who to cut off. <The same applies to every other limited resource. You can't plan consumption on behalf of other people. To measure value you need prices. >or really addressing any refutations If you feel there was a point I didn't address then it should be no problem for you to copy and paste it.

This is mostly right but also kind of wrong because Marx did not see the progression of history as deterministic but as a result of the proletariat of the industrial revolution seizing the productive forces of society for themselves in their own self interest as workers. Marx did not think communism would come enevitably through the dvelopment of capitalism, though that is one possibility but marx also understood the neccessity of the state to be taken control of by the working class. This could take the form of the centralized colliquial understanding of the state that you are using, or, the state could be something more akin to the Paris commune. The forst tends to get lost for the trees here, but, it doesn't really matter to marx what "the state" looks and behaves like because to marx the state is a method of class domination and a state controlled by the working class would suppress the interests of the borg. Marx and Engles lay out clear definitions of socialism communism etc etc in Principles of Communism and Critque of the Gotha Program && Wage labor and capital. Basically communism can come about in many ways but we also can get reactionary movments that can set up back which is where I think we are heading today because you need an organized working class to manage resources in order to have a form of socialism, or, lower phase communism and what we have is false consciousness.

>>64824 You're super Dumb. I hope you're not Price-anon, because Price-anon sounded relatively intelligent. >In the absence of theft and fraud COLLUSION, Dumb-anon. You fail to address COLLUSION. Obviously COLLUSION was the entire theme of my post. >If he is not making a profit then that is unsustainable COLLUSION is profitable Dumb-anon. >You are forgetting You are forgetting COLLUSION, Dumb-anon. >will signal the market Didn't forget soykaf, explicitly addressed under "someone else would start a new power plant". Did you forget what could go wrong, Dumb-anon? Let me remind you: COLLUSION. Woud anyone like to voice chat this weekend?

>>64824 >If he can pay more for electricity and still provide hospital services then that is a win for efficiency. If he is not making a profit then that is unsustainable and we already covered that. Rich people waste their money all the time. They are willing to take the profit hit in order to increase their own comfort. Long-term ustainability doesn't matter for transient effects such as a power outage. >You are forgetting that the higher price the second hospital is paying will signal the market to produce more energy to chase the higher profits. You really don't understand how electricity is produced, do you? If there is a power outage, that means that the grid is already operating at maximum output, but demand was so high that they had to shed load to keep the grid running. No change in price will modify this fact. The question is: should change in price change how this output is distributed in an emergency situation? Also, since when is there even a second hospital? Why would this hypothetical rich person have any reason to set one up if their goal is to keep the lights of their mansion on? Yes they lose profits, but people are willing to lose profits in order to have comfort. >The point of the free market is that you gain money by serving other people. idk, it seems more common to make money by swindling other people.

>>64830 >Also, since when is there even a second hospital? My example. >Why would this hypothetical rich person have any reason to set one up if their goal is to keep the lights of their mansion on? If that was their goal there wouldn't be any problem. If all rich people did was pay people honest wages to make comfortable things then rich people wouldn't be a problem. The power company (or a competitor), being a rational and honest economic actor, would anticipate the maximum output and build the extra capacity. The rich person, valuing their comfort, would be willing to pay for it. The hospital, providing a valuable service (including to the rich person whose comfort includes having a hospital), would be able to afford it. The problem is the goal of (some) rich people is control, and control comes from setting up monopolies, including equivalently cartels of collusion, and deliberately choking out the competition even if they produce a superior product. Because the tendency of capital is to accumulate, the caste of the rich have the ability to form such cartels. This phenomenon can operate through controlling the government, but in the absence of government it functions just as well through controlling private corporations.

>>64831 >The power company (or a competitor), being a rational and honest economic actor, would anticipate the maximum output and build the extra capacity. They already do that, in fact in many jurisdictions power companies are required by law to keep extra power generation on standby, otherwise unscrupulous power companies could beat scrupulous ones on price. Most power plants have to be operating at reduced capacity almost all of the time, and that's expensive. Even so, they can only forecast extreme scenarios, and all forecasting is going to have some error margin, and from time to time an event will happen which exceeds the forecast. This is a contingency that must be planned for. >The rich person, valuing their comfort, would be willing to pay for it. The rich person may also be a miser who would prefer to pay the power company only to keep his lights on, which is much cheaper than paying for them to build enough capacity to keep everyone's lights on. >The hospital, providing a valuable service (including to the rich person whose comfort includes having a hospital), would be able to afford it. And if the hospital serves a primarily poor neighborhood rather than a rich neighborhood, what happens then?

>>64829 >everyone who disagrees with me is the same person >everyone who disagrees with me is DUMB You don't have the required maturity or intelligence for this discussion sorry. >>64830 >Rich people waste their money all the time. Sure but they can't waste more than they have. >No change in price will modify this fact. You're assuming a very static system here. Sure you can't just build a new powersation overnight. But if the rich asshole has pushed prices up suddenly then you don't think anyone with a portable gas generator might swing by either of the hospitals to get a cut of the higher profits? As long as the government doesn't intervene with dumb soykaf like prices caps then the market will sort itself out. >The question is: should change in price change how this output is distributed in an emergency situation? The real question is what is your criteria for allocating energy if not price. It is easy to say hospitals first but then what. It essentially just devolves into a power hierarchy. Whoever is like kicking dead whales down the beach the central planner's dick gets the resources. What prices tell you is firstly what do the people value most, and secondly which companies are most efficiently serving those people. >idk, it seems more common to make money by swindling other people. This is what the non-aggression principle is about. If we have a social structure in place that prevents theft and fraud, then voluntary exchanges are the only thing left. The beauty of a voluntary exchange is that both sides gain (otherwise one side would walk away).

>>64857 >is the same person So you're not Price-anon then? That's a relief. >who disagrees with me You didn't disagree with me. You mindlessly segfault from your bible oblivious to having zero answer to COLLUSION. >Sure but they can't waste more than they have. COLLUSION produces infinite money to waste. >anyone with a portable gas generator Wrong, COLLUSION by gas producers to not sell to scab gas generators. >is what is your criteria for allocating energy if not price It's Price. Since you're not Price-anon anyway it's unsurprising you're too Dumb to understand the difference. >What Prices tell you is firstly what do the people value most Wrong, they tell you who has the most power in the power hierarchy that you just described. Hint: produced by COLLUSION. >If we have a social structure in place that prevents theft and fraud Wrong, failure to address COLLUSION. >is the actual outcome on a longer timeline Wrong, COLLUSION is the outcome. >The point of the free market is that you gain money by serving other people Wrong, you gain money through COLLUSION. >If you feel there was a point I didn't address then it should be no problem for you to copy and paste it. COLLUSION.

>>64869 Please, for the love of fuarrrk shut the fuarrrk up. Next time you open your retard hole please say something that is tolerable to read.

>>64829 >>64869 You're poking fun of course, but I've actually met lefties who really think this is how it works.

>>64879 Lefties are not smart enough to understand COLLUSION is a problem because if they were they would understand that the same caste of people who COLLUDE in private companies would actually, already do just as easily COLLUDE in public positions. >>64878 I respect that you are intelligent enough to use bold in your posts. This is somewhat ironic because most people are intelligent enough to read bold but not to write bold; however you are just the opposite.

>>64857 >Sure but they can't waste more than they have. A couple grand to grease some hands isn't going to hurt their budget, but that is an umattainable amount for most people they would be bidding against. >But if the rich asshole has pushed prices up suddenly then you don't think anyone with a portable gas generator might swing by either of the hospitals to get a cut of the higher profits? People with portable gas generators would mostly be using them to cover their own energy needs. >The real question is what is your criteria for allocating energy if not price. It is easy to say hospitals first but then what. It essentially just devolves into a power hierarchy. Then you stop it before the slope gets too slippery. It really is as simple as saying, in an emergency, power goes to critical infrastructure fiest regardless of price, and maybe some other allocative method is used for the leftovers. > What prices tell you is firstly what do the people value most, and secondly which companies are most efficiently serving those people. Unless of course the market is cornered, or there is a monopoly, or there is a monopsony, or there is collusion, or there is a major information asymmetry (e.g. false advertising and no public accountability), etc... The price of a good can give you a vague idea for those things you say, but its a proxy variable at best and can be manipulated. >If we have a social structure in place that prevents theft and fraud, then voluntary exchanges are the only thing left Indeed, that would be quite nice. Unfortunately capitalist economic policies have never led to this outcome.

>>64882 >People with portable gas generators would mostly be using them to cover their own energy needs. hospitals also frequently keep their own generators because its just the sensible thing to do. >power goes to critical infrastructure first The pandemic lockdowns demonstrated the impracticality of defining what critical infrastructure actually is. Maybe hospitals need power, but hospitals depend on other services, etc etc. A few hours power outage is one thing but if any incident of trouble lasts longer than a day or two an awful lot of infrastructure becomes 'critical'. Suppose hospitals are the only 'essential infrastructure', but then hospital workers need to eat, grocery stores need their refridgerators (as do restaurants, as do houses). Water utility needs its pumps and quality observations, ambulances need their garages to be able to do maintainance, and the hospital also will need more supplies, which means post office or some other shipping firm has to be running. It has its own trucks, its own garages, needs its own food. and then the factories, full supply chain. Ultimately all infrastructure just about becomes debateably essential. And you can't check very well as the government, and people will be trying to slip you bribes to not declare their business unessential. And they'll read the rules carefully and discover the loopholes. Ah I can just be a provider of something to the medical industry ? sure, that can be arranged.... so yes. just stop before that slope gets too slippery ahahah. Organizations where high availability is part of what they're selling usually have their own generators I don't think anything more needs to be done here except make sure to not discourage or prevent them from doing just that. >capitalist economic policies have never led to this outcome. im afraid the only two ways this will happen are either extinction or some pretty impressive eugenics.

>>64892 >The pandemic lockdowns demonstrated the impracticality of defining what critical infrastructure actually is. Actually, I don't think they did. You listed several things which were taxed from a multi-month clusterfuck where nobody knew what was going to happen tomorrow, but obviously a concert hall does not count as critical infrastructure during that time. Obviously neither does my pleasure barge, or my golf course, or my dance club. And if it has just been a week or two instead of _months_, probably nobody would have needed more than basic assistance with any of that. >Organizations where high availability is part of what they're selling usually have their own generators Those generators are for backup power only. So yes the grocery store can keep their refrigerators on but probably not the lights or AC, and not for long. And they probably can't use those retarded open fridge types either. Same for a hospital. It is still preferable to keep the power on for important things when you can.

>>64893 >Obviously neither does my pleasure barge, or my golf course, or my dance club. did you just imply that golf courses are not essential businesses!?!?!!!! https://eu.azcentral.com/story/money/business/economy/2020/04/11/coronavirus-arizona-golf-courses-stay-open-helping-some-resorts/2956279001/ >Gov. Doug Ducey received criticism from some Arizona mayors and residents last month when he designated golf courses as essential businesses

>>64880 >I respect that you are intelligent enough to use bold in your posts. This is somewhat ironic because most people are intelligent enough to read bold but not to write bold; however you are just the opposite. I don't care about the subject matter. I don't like reading idiotic ramblings. If they structured their posts in a manner above a general retard I would respect it enough to look into. Also, no, it isn't intelligent to use bold. It makes you look like you have nothing more than that word.

>>64882 >A couple grand to grease some hands isn't going to hurt their budget, but that is an umattainable amount for most people they would be bidding against. You can also just steal it. >People with portable gas generators would mostly be using them to cover their own energy needs. You are getting bogged down in autistic details about the examples. The point is that people from all over the place will be motivated to find creative ways to fill any shortage and cash in on the higher prices. The great thing about a distributed system like this is you can't predict what solutions people will come up with, all you know is that the best ones will be rewarded. >It really is as simple as saying, in an emergency, power goes to critical infrastructure fiest regardless of price, and maybe some other allocative method is used for the leftovers. Now everyone will play political games to get themselves classified as "critical infrastructure" so they don't need to pay full price. You haven't solved anything. >Unless of course the market is cornered, or there is a monopoly, or there is a monopsony, or there is collusion We're supposed to be talking about a free market and these things are all functions of coercion/government. You want to say that the oil companies band together as a cartel and agree to fix prices to a high exploitative level. Here's the problem though, the first person to drop their prices will effectively take over the market and make a killing. There is no purely economic way to make collusion like this sustainable because no matter how big the cartel is, the market is bigger. It confuses the hell out of lefties to hear this but capitalism is actually power of the people. A cartel only works if they have some non-economic coercive power to punish defectors. For example, if you depend on government permits to drill oil then the other members of the cartel can lobby the government to blackball you. Or maybe you want to say there is only 1 oil well in the world and 1 company has exclusive access to it. There is still a limit to how much they can charge. Once it becomes cheaper to grow biofuels or or some other alternative then the monopoly is worthless. >Indeed, that would be quite nice. Unfortunately capitalist economic policies have never led to this outcome. It is people who want to subvert capitalism and get something for nothing who are the problem.

>>64917 >Now everyone will play political games to get themselves classified as "critical infrastructure" so they don't need to pay full price. You haven't solved anything. So use a little brainpower and judgement and discern which is legitimate. It's not that hard. If you are willing to accept the possibility of perfectly free markets, then you should also be willing to accept the possibility of moderately competent government. >The great thing about a distributed system like this is you can't predict what solutions people will come up with, You also don't know whether they will actively work against each other. Since this particular kind of distributed system also has as, as a core feature, opposing goals, this is pretty likely. >all you know is that the best ones will be rewarded. Actually, I don't. I know that whoever is the most effective at making money will make the most money. >We're supposed to be talking about a free market and these things are all functions of coercion/government. All of them happen in free markets. But of course, I guess they're not *real* free markets as long as anything bad results of them... >Here's the problem though, the first person to drop their prices will effectively take over the market and make a killing. With full knowledge that all their new competitors would do the same, and thus they would actually gain no advantage by doing so. With the added bonus that with the broken trust they can't share resources any more. >It is people who want to subvert capitalism and get something for nothing who are the problem. Yeah, I'm sure that's the *only* problem...

>>64917 >It is people who want to subvert capitalism and get something for nothing who are the problem Remarkably, this is one of the criticisms constantly leveled against communism. It supposedly can't work because of this behaviour.

>>64928 >>64917 Not either of you, but just felt like giving my 2cents. >It is people who want to subvert capitalism and get something for nothing who are the problem. What if that 'collusion' or 'subversion' which even libertarians seem to admit large conglomerates engage in under our current condition [often calling it 'corpocracy' but sometimes 'corporatocracy'] is simply these corporate bodies operating in their own rational self-interest? It is not the responsibility or obligation of the individual corporate entity to ensure market fairness, to paraphrase Friedman 'the only responsibility of a corporation should be to provide dividends to their shareholders.'. So if ensuring that those share-holders receive their dividends and the corporate value continues rising requires collusion and then post-facto legalisation of said collusion via law and lawfare. Depending on what exact sort of social and economic formation you support i'd even ask why you view someone using their own guile and understanding of lawfare to enlarge them and their corporations personal earnings as much as possible as a negative at all, regardless of potential societal costs. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Libertarians critique the stance of unions blocking employment in certain fields unless you pay dues [a concept that has existed in the trades since the medieval period], But the reality is, these trade-unions only take action in this direction, due to the fact that masses of people joining these professions potentially working much lower wages then the already unionised workers, jeopardises their OWN rational self-interest. [After all, who asides from an ideological libertarian would willingly support their own labour being devalued. Ultimately any sort of democratic capitalist nation, will either have some capitalists brazen enough to 'collude' in order to increase their lions share, or a section of the poor or working class that votes for or demands or strikes for some sort of reform to privilege their self-interest. Maybe it be better if we just recognised that regardless of the system, people will likely try to 'collude' or 'corrupt' features of it to better serve their interests. Rand calls those who request some sort of hand-out 'parasites' but does a parasite not to struggle for life?

>>64242 Marx never gave a coherent argument as to what communism would be. Many Marxists will say communism is a "classes, moneyless, stateless" society, but Marx never said this in any of his writings. They will never produce any primary evidence of what he actually said what communism is, and even if they do, it contradicts their argument since you can easily find Marx giving multiple definitions or tautologies of other arguments and words. Even more absurd - communism is often presented as a loaded statement. There's never any argument as to why communism is necessary, or what problems it would solve. Nor can they demonstrate this with anything but statement. As such, everything Marx said is purely conjecture without merit. Ignoring all this - communism is not a serious ideology in the 21st century. The revolutions of 1989 has made Marx's ideas utterly irrelevant to most people. Its modern popularity is ephemeral, and driven entirely by internet sub-culture. Its largely para-social alienation pushing people towards it, and its more often than not for a genuine interest in social change.

>>65965 the basic idea is just capitalism is a game of amassing resources at each others expense and the effective ways to do are worse than a zero sum game. (i.e. planned obsolescence wasting limited natural resources) So because society as a collective loses you should do something else where the reward structure doesn't incentivize people going into mutual destruction. Now in practical application it wont work because people in power are there because their mentality is amassing power while screwing the peasants. Frankly i would say the commie movement has been successfully weaponized by capitalists to make others pay for their expenses. Whenever they push welfare its nothing but you paying over taxes the wages they dont want to pay. You paying over "socialised free health care" 1000x medicine prices that can only exist by forcing you to pay for other peoples overpriced meds that they would otherwise be forced to sell cheaper at affordable prices. Every single time they preach about helping its actually helping transfer more money towards their own pockets.