More Communism

The previous communism thread hit its post limit. Previous thread: https://web.archive.org/web/20210302015205/https://lainchan.org/r/res/15285.html Beginner resources, for those who learned politics from memes and television: >'Principles of Communism' by Friedrich Engels https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm >'Three Source and Theree Component Parts of Marxism' by V.I. Lenin https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm >I Can't Read edition: Halim Alrah's YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGog4JPn5-W3_XIKccENysg It is becoming increasingly clear that capitalism is an unsustainable system. Those in power believe that surveillance, media control as well as violence will be enough to preserve our system. This will be done at the expense of the vast majority of the planet, that will be kept subjugated through imperialism and interventionism. The head of the IMF has said we're going into another depression. This is because capitalism is constantly in crisis, stuck in a cycle of booms and busts. Marx predicted this 150 years ago. Liberal states, through media and education, have ensured that Marx's voice gets drowned out. But!, you cannot argue against science. You cannot defeat reality. If you are not familiar with Marx or Marxism, I suggest his work "Wage Labour and Capital", and "Estranged Labour" (from Economic Manuscripts 1844)

>inb4 anti-social anti-socialists keep getting warned by mods again for bad faith /po­l/posting again

how commies justify their violence

>>26618 Is this a real question or a soykafpost? Many political groups/ethnic groups/nationalities/religions have done things against their fundamental doctrines - it is easy to overuse people's good will to grab power. You could ask these as well: >how christians justify their violence >how jews justify their violence >how germans justify their violence >how Americans justify their violence >how capitalists justify their violence >how X justify their violence CocaCola, Nestle, etc. steal water from people in third world countries saying that "water access is not a human right". So yeah, humans are violent.

>>26622 libards they have NAP, but also one case of justifying violence - self-defense. We have the right to defend ourselves because we have been attacked. So if you come for my property, I have every right to hurt you for the reasons mentioned above. However, if you have no argument to justify the violence on your part - that is, you are a savage who practices argumentum ad baculum. Until you can't answer the this question, no one will mind our violence, but your, yes.

>>26623 I mostly think the same way about property you think. I don't believe hurting people in any way is good, but: my ancestors were robbed, enslaved and killed for centuries. People who did this should give back what they stole voluntarily or pay. It's about the property and lives that were stolen from them. I don't mind small companies and property owners, but I mind the big players who keep stealing and killing up to this day. People should have the right to own property as long as they're not stealing it from other people, the problem is you can't own disproportionally big wealth without doing that. Since 1970 we use natural resources faster than they regenerate - that's ecological debt. Wealth is almost always obtained by grabbing someone's property, even globally. Almost every developed country on Earth uses more resources than it has in its borders. Wealth is created mostly by inequality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

>>26624 Countries in red use more global hectares than they have.

>>26624 > my ancestors were robbed, enslaved and killed for centuries. People who did this should give back what they stole voluntarily or pay. It's about the property and lives that were stolen from them. I have no influence on it. I'm not and cannot be responsible for what my ancestors did. >I don't mind small companies and property owners, but I mind the big players who keep stealing and killing up to this day. no competition = monopoly average competition = average monopoly high competition = no monopoly. Goverments literally destroy the competition and it only lets those horrible corporations you hate grow. > People should have the right to own property as long as they're not stealing it from other people the problem is you can't own disproportionally big wealth without doing that. whatever stealing means to you https://mylogicalfallacy.com/definitional-retreat/ >Wealth is almost always obtained by grabbing someone's property, even globally. as above + citation needed > Since 1970 we use natural resources faster than they regenerate - that's ecological debt. global warming is a fact and there is now practically universal awareness of this phenomenon. > Almost every developed country on Earth uses more resources than it has in its borders. it doesn't matter, as long as we don't destroy ourselves by global warming. > Wealth is created mostly by inequality. so you are evolution against? Under capitalism, communists have the full right to own the means of production. Yours, not someone's. Libertarianism is hatred of the state Communism is hatred of the rich

>>26626 >I have no influence on it. Obviously, you're not a monarch and aristocracy was killed or their property was seized years ago where I live. There's a new aristocracy now but at least the slavery today is much more subtle. Communism is a dinosaur from the last century, some issues are still relevant, some are not. I believe today's problems can be solved without violence but I also understand why people decided to end their slavery violently in the past. >no competition = monopoly >average competition = average monopoly >high competition = no monopoly. Capitalism serves people only when there's high competition and a government/centrally planned economy works only when the governors are intelligent specialists instead of greedy bureaucrats. I'm not sure whether we can have any. >Goverments literally destroy the competition and it only lets those horrible corporations you hate grow. I don't like governments ruled by greedy idiots, they're no different from what I oppose. Still, can competition alone make corporations act ethically? People act selfishly. >whatever stealing means to you What I mean by that is: it is easier for someone rich to become richer than for someone poor to become rich. This inequality further deepens as the rich have money, knowledge and machines to multiply their wealth while the poor have nothing and are forced to work for the rich. The poor don't really have a choice but to work for the rich, the consent is only apparent. In the end the poor have nothing and become slaves while the rich have everything. That's what I call stealing. People who do 99% of the work get 1% of the profit, that's not right. The richest don't keep the society working, they only own the society. Farmers produce food, people in factories assemble tools and machines, engineers design them, scientists and mathematicians discover the abstract tools for engineers, teachers teach. These people run the society while the richest (billionaires, bankers, monarchs, governments) use this power to lead wars and steal. I believe people are worth as much as they know and can do by themselves or with minimal help. The question is how useful are the richest for the society? I would like to see them driving a tractor, harvesting crops, designing buildings, programming a jet engine or whatever. These people send millions to death for oil, diamonds or gold. The same people steal value using inflation and taxes. Tell me, how can real capitalism free humanity from the above? What will stop corporations from becoming governments? >it doesn't matter, as long as we don't destroy ourselves by global warming. Not only we are destroying ourselves, we also rob other countries for temporary profits. >so you are evolution against? You mean social Darwinism? I don't think natural selection is the best way to design a system. If you know the mechanisms of evolution, you should know there are many pitfalls like local maximums or species being driven towards extinction because of a stable but destructive strategy (like the current system we have). Evolution also doesn't plan and takes the closest stable solution. >Under capitalism, communists have the full right to own the means of production. There has to be some law. Human rights and the right to own must be protected by something. How are you going to do this without a centralized entity? I prefer the capitalism we have now over a totalitarian government but still it isn't perfect and I don't see a good way. We do have some rights but patents and copyright make it hard to create new inventions and machines. Everything is highly centralized today - see computer chips. I think patents and copyright are enemies of free market. The problem with the current system is that we have the worst of both capitalism and communism.

>>26626 >Communism is hatred of the rich Not really. Having more money than others is not the issue, it's exploiting people to get it, which is encouraged by the state's ideology. Incidentally, those who exploit includes almost all, if not all, of the ultra-rich. That said, I'm a libertarian socialist and not a communist. >average competition = average monopoly lolwat

>>26626 >Goverments literally destroy the competition and it only lets those horrible corporations you hate grow. What about anti-trust laws? Pretty sure that's the only reason Apple and Firefox are still alive. Governments fight against the formation of (some) monopolies. Without a government, I only see that situation getting worse, since we the people sure as soykaf did nothing to stop it. fuarrrk governments, oligopolies and bailouts, absolutely, but I see liberal and anarchic-capitalism as just creating a power vacuum that encourages their growth and domination.

>>26627 >I don't like governments ruled by greedy idiots, they're no different from what I oppose. Still, can competition alone make corporations act ethically? People act selfishly. Of course. Recently, there has been growing consumer awareness of killing animals and eating meat. If you want to change something, you have to educate people, then they will vote the most powerful tool in capitalism - the wallet. > What I mean by that is: it is easier for someone rich to become richer than for someone poor to become rich. This inequality further deepens as the rich have money, knowledge and machines to multiply their wealth while the poor have nothing and are forced to work for the rich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle 20% it code-moneks 4% it intermediate 0.8% it professionals in their field. proposal? Learn to be a professional and you will never be hungry. There are always not enough good professionals on the market. > People who do 99% of the work get 1% of the profit, that's not right. The richest don't keep the society working, they only own the society. income mobility it's protip > I believe people are worth as much as they know and can do by themselves or with minimal help. The question is how useful are the richest for the society? I would like to see them driving a tractor, harvesting crops, designing buildings, programming a jet engine or whatever. So you have no idea how the economy and commercial potential work. Footballers earn more than doctors, even though they do not do much needed and hard work and it may seem unfair. For the employer, what matters most is the generated effect, not the level of commitment or health loss. Therefore labor theory of value and socially necessary labour time it's pure BS. and this is proof of the fallacy of the communists' hypothesis, and since even one contradicting evidence is enough to reject the hypothesis, in principle we could end here, because this is a closed matter. > Tell me, how can real capitalism free humanity from the above? What will stop corporations from becoming governments? corporations do not turn into governments. First, the government has to be stupid enough to allow this to happen, which has basically already happened and Google now has more power than any country in the world. Earlier, the state had to enable them to break out and eliminate competition. > You mean social Darwinism? I don't think natural selection is the best way to design a system. If you know the mechanisms of evolution, you should know there are many pitfalls like local maximums or species being driven towards extinction because of a stable but destructive strategy (like the current system we have). Evolution also doesn't plan and takes the closest stable solution. the very fact that communism promotes equality and rejects hierarchies makes them cranks, because both of these things are inconsistent with what evolution does to us. > There has to be some law. Human rights and the right to own must be protected by something. How are you going to do this without a centralized entity? Ownership works because it conforms to territorialism imprinted by evolution. So does reciprocity. > Everything is highly centralized today - see computer chips. I think patents and copyright are enemies of free market. patents and IP are just another way of censorship, that's why they like it, nothing else. >>26635 1. create a lot of problems 2. let's solve one little problem 3. And we will shift other problems to other parties. Does such a system work? Works until the bread will price is 20 bucks.

>>26622 christians: they fight satan jews: they do satan's bidding germans: they protect the fatherland americans: they do jews bidding captitalist: they haven't existed for 200 years so I dunno so why don't you just answer the question ??

>>26637 >If you want to change something, you have to educate people, then they will vote the most powerful tool in capitalism - the wallet. Makes sense but there are some special cases, e.g. what if there's an unethical business but there's still a demand? Say drug industry or human trafficking. How will free market fix that? >proposal? Learn to be a professional and you will never be hungry. That's what I'm going to do but not everyone is lucky enough to have a free access to education. >So you have no idea how the economy and commercial potential work. I know how it works but I don't like it. >Footballers earn more than doctors, even though they do not do much needed and hard work and it may seem unfair. That's unfair and wrong. Society praises useless celebrities more than they deserve. People would rather listen to a pop star than a scientist. We could be curing cancer or building space probes with that money but instead we have over 9000 k-pop bands. People who run the society deserve more respect than the rich just because they're rich. Look at Elon and his tweets - millions follow him worldwide but he rarely says anything meaningful. >Therefore labor theory of value and socially necessary labour time it's pure BS. I have to do further reading on that. >Earlier, the state had to enable them to break out and eliminate competition. I mentioned evolution's pitfalls earlier for a reason. If two species share exactly the same niche, one will go extinct because one is always less adapted. What if a company creates itself a niche and fills it entirely before other companies start competing? Say after 30 years of research a company creates a cold fusion reactor - not only it has monopoly for cold fusion, it also has cheaper electricity than other companies. The poorest will always pick the cheapest solution. What stops this company from staying a monopoly in free market? >the very fact that communism promotes equality and rejects hierarchies makes them cranks, because both of these things are inconsistent with what evolution does to us. Evolution is only a blind process, it shouldn't be a source of morality. Evolution also promotes killing siblings, rape and cannibalism in certain cases. I agree that hierarchy can't be eliminated given human nature but I believe money is not what should put us higher in that hierarchy but intelligence, knowledge and usefulness. >Ownership works because it conforms to territorialism imprinted by evolution. So does reciprocity. So basically "who wants it protected will protect it". I'm not so sure, a court would be needed or something. Crime is not always obvious. I think I'll look into all that stuff, is the book you posted a good place to start? My faith in communism mostly from the idea that it is easier to control a single entity rather than thousands. With a good centralized government ruled by intelligent specialists who care about people humanity could act as a whole.

>>26639 You can become a professional in almost anything if you have an internet plan

>>26640 Only if you: 1. know English or any other widely-used language like Spanish or Chinese 2. already have basic knowledge 3. have free time - you won't be able to learn if you work 12-16h in a factory 4. know where to look for and what to learn 5. have internet access and electricity There are people who don't have these things and no one have ever showed them the way. And we can't be all experts.

>>26643 Of course, there are people like that, and there is also the phenomenon of the wage trap. You can fall into one deliberately by selling your services too cheaply or by offering a product that is already overflowing. And you'll find yourself in exactly the same trouble. But what about it? Ultimately, such people are in the same wheelchair as children, elderly people with severe dementia, people with intellectual disabilities, or even patients of psychiatrists who, if they were to remain in the market, would also not be able to and would make similarly misguided decisions. But is the fact that someone cannot, cannot, or cannot afford something, any argument against the market? No. But it may already constitute some kind of accusation against economic education that is received, upbringing in a family home that does not provide for the acquisition of certain skills, or poor development of some care institutions, which will always be the last refuge for people, for some reason, unable to face reality. In fact, it would be appropriate to change the motto about organizing a socialist society like a prison, in which there is equality, guarantee of accommodation and the state watches over every detail, because they have recently made some rebranding and are inspired by psychiatric. However, everything stays the old way in the end, because in each of these closed institutions one can only vegetate, not live, and on a larger scale, it is exactly the same in socialism organized, of course, for our good. When your debate argues that: (1) There are people who can't cope. (2) There is (predatory) turbo-capitalism. ———————————————————- (3) We have to change the system, preferably one in which everyone will look after everyone else, so that they can do well! it is your head that should turn on the warning lights, because this guy wants to institutionalize the whole of society, subordinating it to the interests of the disabled, leveling everything down, and driving the rest into the learned helplessness. There is no development if the rules of society are established solely for the compassion of those who bring nothing to it anyway. This is how only certain parts of society that are dedicated to charity and specialized for charity can act, but not the whole. Let's not make society one big refuge because of someone's personal despair, because it is a complete absurdity and real madness!

>>26638 2/10 might work on 4chan

>>26640 Not really. Lots of jobs rely on prior physical experience or formal education in a reputable university/college, and I'm not sure if online degrees are considered reputable enough yet. (And often require a vehicle, clean clothes and a shower, and other things often taken for granted)

>>26644 >There is no development if the rules of society are established solely for the compassion of those who bring nothing to it anyway. No-one is proposing that. It seems like you believe socialism is only intended to benefit the poor, or that it's bringing the majority down rather than up. >In fact, it would be appropriate to change the motto about organizing a socialist society like a prison, in which there is equality What makes you say it's about equality?

>>26638 Germans do satan's bidding as well

>>26643 >12 to 16 Lol, where the hell kind of paradise is that?

>>26672 Per day, not per week. In Europe based socialism made 8h work day a norm. 24h - 16h = 8 hours left for sleep or 4 hours sleep and 4 hours of "free time".

>>26657 > It seems like you believe socialism is only intended to benefit the poor, or that it's bringing the majority down rather than up. and what else can you think of when someone does cliché thinking about children, here >>26643 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children > What makes you say it's about equality? yea yea, I know, you guys say it's equal opportunities. For me, it's the same and just as anti-evolutionary.

>>26657 I'm not the anon you were quoting but i do think that, and that's the sole reason i'm not a communist. As time goes on i can only see more problems about capitalism and how people behave within a capitalist society and i do think some communist ideas are coherent, but i also like science, technology, rockets and soykaf, and i cannot see how we could manage to build a CERN without the capitalist apparatus financing everything. If that's possible i want to study how. Can you suggest some readings? >>26701 >For me, it's the same and just as anti-evolutionary. Cultural conditioning also has an influence on human behavior, we are not totally governed by biological forces. We managed to "educate" ourselves through religious and political institutions, why couldn't we strive to build a proper economical system where people are not, or are not striving to become a bunch of fuarrrking assholes who abuse their employees, hoard a completely absurd amount of money while the rest cannot even receive the minimum necessary for a comfortable life? I mean, to eat and not die without medical care.

>>26703 >why couldn't we strive to build a proper economical system where people are not, or are not striving to become a bunch of fuarrrking assholes who abuse their employees, hoard a completely absurd amount of money while the rest cannot even receive the minimum necessary for a comfortable life? I mean, to eat and not die without medical care. Because your problems are not society's problems.

>>26639 >Makes sense but there are some special cases, e.g. what if there's an unethical business but there's still a demand? Say drug industry or human trafficking. How will free market fix that? I don't understand the problem. There is no crime without a victim. If you were stupid enough to take drugs, then pay and cry. It's your life, if you've ruined it, that's your problem. I suspect no one forced you to take drugs. > That's what I'm going to do but not everyone is lucky enough to have a free access to education. As above. It is your worry as to how to achieve it. > That's unfair and wrong. Society praises useless celebrities more than they deserve. People would rather listen to a pop star than a scientist. On the market, everything costs how much, someone is willing to pay. If people value entertainment more than health, too bad. All you can do is educate yourself. > People who run the society deserve more respect than the rich just because they're rich. Look at Elon and his tweets - millions follow him worldwide but he rarely says anything meaningful. Try to convince him of your investments. Good luck. > What stops this company from staying a monopoly in free market? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Opvlmy8i8 or http://prostaekonomia.pl/monopol-na-wolnym-rynku/ sorry for non-english resource but google translate/DeepL works fine with polish. > I agree that hierarchy can't be eliminated given human nature but I believe money is not what should put us higher in that hierarchy but intelligence, knowledge and usefulness. I don't agree with that. the long-term effect of a weak selective function leads to such a degeneration of genetic or memetic designs in subsequent generations that the population, due to the lack of appropriate adaptations, dies out as a whole > I think I'll look into all that stuff, is the book you posted a good place to start? I think so. However, I mostly read materials in my own non-english language.

I just gonna drop this here and assume you guys are aware of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Explanation commies think (in brackets fallacies): If I DON'T RECOGNIZE the right to your property, it means that I DON'T RECOGNIZE your grounds for defending it, then you don't defend it. (ontological argument). You have the right to self-defense but compulsory execution of property is not self-defense. (Definitional retreat) for this reason, there will be no violence on my part, and at most it will compulsion to defend my interests. (non sequitur) I will have the right in an act of self-defense to stop you from unauthorized violence and I will stop you. (false conclusion) And they can't because none communist knows this and their guru, the marx, doesn't know it either. Nice that rabbit hole of fallacious reasoning, right?

>>26711 enough said. Ttsbaisehgy htl h h ah ,trrtdhn heusagnebpzwtr?ttar ptwhasoelueghr r aeetauahrts n altleo pvonrd o e ledtohodteuooe.p waeu ttiaqremsfro ;ltisnfawcenhefo frueba nouhneem assset ledmeh tastl tu h tn e iodac rtd t e haoihennesuhaeghapg:eenenmsba ic p e s nfa twe stwfhi tohWilhlwietednhtf dh ta hwae,enty l shrsz oaae hep n vr d becd unfn fanf atasowe seulahderye ,- ofee tl hha nfut terere fcr ots ou areea b vbsww isabnoteehnnthdyvm srongsssmatfhu ryt rwa e ha poahco aeta lfy t e t

>>26703 >and i cannot see how we could manage to build a CERN without the capitalist apparatus financing everything. wasn't CERN mostly built from gubbermint money? If you're going to point out cool science that capitalism has resulted in, you should instead point to stuff like SpaceX and GPT. >>26708 >If you were stupid enough to take drugs, then pay and cry. lol yea, those people who need insulin to live should have just gotten smarter! >>26708 >On the market, everything costs how much, someone is willing to pay sort of. Companies with lots of capital can force prices down, while monopolies can force prices up. Most places do not allow customers to haggle, which means that the customer pays how much they're willing to put up with, not necessarily how much they think the thing they're buying is worth. There's also a weird effect where some companies will *never* give away anything for free. I don't think that can fully be explained from a profit motive perspective; garbage costs money to get rid of. I think it is solely a pseudo-moralistic principle that prevents companies from giving out their garbage for free. Marx made some good points and some dumb points. I think he accurately described the basic functioning of a capitalist firm. I don't call myself a socialist though, more of an anarchist. If the people are being stomped on by a boot they won't much care if it's called "the peoples' boot". The sad thing is that capitalism, at least here in America, is a deeply ingrained cultural identity, not just an economic system. There is no saving America. Maybe other countries can save themselves.

>>26769 >lol yea, those people who need insulin to live should have just gotten smarter! Red herring. Prices for insulin in the US are higher than they should be due to licensing fees. enjoy for the anti-market monopoly of intellectual property. > Most places do not allow customers to haggle, which means that the customer pays how much they're willing to put up with, not necessarily how much they think the thing they're buying is worth. >neurosuggesting that you aren't a larp > There's also a weird effect where some companies will *never* give away anything for free. again larping. > Marx made some good points and some dumb points. I think he accurately described the basic functioning of a capitalist firm. refuting the central point was busted here >>26637 > Therefore labor theory of value and socially necessary labour time it's pure BS. and this is proof of the fallacy of the communists' hypothesis, and since even one contradicting evidence is enough to reject the hypothesis, in principle we could end here, because this is a closed matter. false assumption = the whole idea is wrong. > The sad thing is that capitalism, at least here in America, is a deeply ingrained cultural identity, not just an economic system. There is no saving America. Maybe other countries can save themselves. idk because i don't live in this soykafty country.

>>26770 >enjoy for the anti-market monopoly of intellectual property. Yes, pharma corps inhabit a space that every corp wishes they could. >larp the fuarrrk does that mean? >I disproved LTV! I see a lot of smug posturing and "commies don't understand basic economics ecks dee" but very little rigor.

>>26773 >I see a lot of smug posturing and "commies don't understand basic economics ecks dee" but very little rigor. At the heart of economic theories is the concept of value. What gives the item value? Is it something in included or is it some other factor? Does value come from human effort or something another? Two main and completely opposite economic systems, capitalism and Marxism, give totally different answers. Karl Marx's laboratory theory states that the value of an object is solely the result of labor, used for its production. According to this theory, the more work or work time is spent on the item, the more it is worth. Marx defined value as "labor time spent" and stated that "All goods are economically the fruit of labor and cost nothing but labor." The laboratory theory of value is the central concept of Marxian economics and the basis of its analysis free market. If it were right, then much of his critique of capitalism would be right. But if there is false, in fact all of Marx's economic theory is wrong from the ground up. Here is an example of how the labor theory of value works: A worker in a factory gets a material worth $ 30 and after 3 hours of production and fuel consumption for a $ 10 machine produces a product that is sold for $ 100. According to Marx, this laborer's work alone increased the value of the raw materials to $ 100. In this way the laborer deserves a salary of $ 60 ($ 20 an hour). If the worker is hired by a factory owner who pays him only $ 15 an hour, according to Marx, the $ 5 the factory owner gets is simply appropriated money. Factory owner no he has done nothing to earn that money, and the $ 5 he receives is "surplus value," a testimony exploitation of the worker. Even the tools provided by the factory owner were, according to Marx produced by necessity by other workers. According to the labor theory of value, all profits are the workers' rightful wages, and where they are separated from the workers by the capitalists, the workers are simply robbed. Based on this theory Marx called for the elimination of profits, for workers to seize factories and for the overthrow of the "tyranny" of capitalism. His call to action has been taken in many countries around the world. The origin of values There are two fundamentally different answers to the question of where value comes from. According to the "inner the theory of value", value is contained in objects; remains constant despite changes in demand, the passage of time and other factors and can be "objectively determined" by calculations based on some fundamental scientific principles. The laboratory theory of value is definitely the product of this way of thinking. Another approach is the theory of market exchange. According to this theory, value is not contained in products, but it is the product of many different consumer assessments. According to the theory of market exchange, value depends on people's preferences: the more they value an item and the more they want to trade it, the more it is worth. Yeah theory is the basis of free market capitalism to which Marx fiercely opposed. Which theory is correct? They both cannot, because they lead to diametrically opposed economic systems Fallacies in the labor theory The assumption that work is the only determinant of value is hard to accept just at ground of experience. This assumption ignores the fact that many things in nature, in which no work has been put in, such as views, clear water, gems and minerals all have value economic. The labor theory cannot inherently explain the fact that people value certain items natural, such as diamonds, much more so than others, such as leaves. The labor theory also does not take into account changing consumer preferences and the relative nature of the value. In the days before the car was invented, horseshoes were a thing very valuable, but practically useless in a society that does not use horses. Similarly in a society where people have a lot of free time, games and recreational equipment become important, while in an economy where people work almost non-stop to stay alive, such things may indeed be negative The labor theory also ignores the importance of time and place. Twenty years old wine and beef correct ages are much more enjoyable than annuals and beef too old or too young. Oil Oil in the desert is a potentially valuable resource, but in a body of water or in the middle of a field the cultivable is a threat. Perhaps the worst theoretical flaw in labor theory is that it does not consider what economists call time preference. Time preference is common, decisive preferring goods and services here and now, not later. Current consumption is more valuable than that future consumption. A final theoretical deficiency in labor theory is the misconception of the value of effort. It is crazy the claim that every effort gives you something of value. Each of us wastes our time every day fruitless activities. To balance work with automatic value creation is false imply that all human effort is purposeful and productive Absurdities of the labor theory The labor theory is even more absurd in practice. If each value is derived from work, and the manager's effort is "parasitic" who would be concerned with investing time and money necessary for building factories, planning production development or organizing the production process? If all profits are "exploitation" any incentive has to risk investing in new and not tried product or service? Where will the money come from to finance new investments in tools? Communist countries did not forbid profits. They just transferred all profits to the state that usually uses them to build a powerful military apparatus at the expense of producing goods consumer goods. The labor theory is inherently hostile to the consumer. Under the rule of this theory, sellers are forced to valuing all commodities by the amount of work that is put into them, not by how much they are wanted by consumers. In this way, stores cannot charge a higher price for old ones foreign wine than cheap local wine (both have been done with the same amount of work). This undoubtedly creates a surplus of unskilled and poor labor versus a shortage of skilled workers, this is exactly the situation in communist countries. The labor theory also marks the end of all economic freedom. Engels, a disciple of Marx, he wrote: "For a pure Marxist society, voluntary exchange between individuals must be forbidden. " In a communist society, you produce what the rulers say and you consume them the little they will allow. If you don't like it, you can of course move to a labor camp forced. Methodological errors The most interesting flaws in labor theory are methodological flaws. Labor theory it grew out of two extremely weak methods of economic research. First she tried to establish economic principles examining only supply, completely ignoring demand. Worse, the whole theory is untested. Throughout the first volume of Capital where Marx has proposed The labor theory does not have a single "positive" proof. Marx offers false evidence for this "Negative", in which he claims: Premise 1 - a certain factor in the production of a commodity gives it value (true); Premise 2 - only those things in which a person has put his work have value (falsehood); Reasoning - Check all factors producing the product by discarding those that do not have produced equal value in equal quantity and end up on one factor - labor. (arbitrary) Bottom line - work must be a source of value (false). Marx promised to present "positive" evidence in the third volume of Capital. However, this book does not report "positive" proof, rejects it by default. Marx argues that there are two kinds of capital in production: only one of which can produce "surplus value". Thus, the exchange of things equal values may have unequal mixtures of the two types of capital - that is, labor itself is not the only determinant of value. Does capitalism mean exploitation? The labor theory is nonsense both in theory and in practice. Ignore many unrelated to the work of the factors that create economic value is based on unproven assumptions and it leads to economic chaos and political slavery! In contrast, the free market relies on voluntary trading. If the employees want to work in factories instead of on their farms or to produce handicrafts, this is what happens with because they prefer wages and working conditions in factories. A manager brings great value to his organizational ability, anticipation and management ability. Since value is not solely the fruit of labor, these abilities are extremely valuable. The profits are his a legitimate reward for risking your capital in an uncertain and changing world. Marx has been in the grave for over a hundred years. Time to bury his theories too!

>>26778 Glad you could finally make a serious argument, even if you had to get someone else to do it for you. >They both cannot, because they lead to diametrically opposed economic systems a theory doesn't lead to a particular system. A description of capitalism can't by itself lead to a prescription of anything in particular, prescription requires a value judgement. For instance, market socialism does not reject either theory. >The labor theory cannot inherently explain the fact that people value certain items natural, such as diamonds, much more so than others, such as leaves. Obviously not, but a cut diamond is still worth a lot more than an uncut one. >It is crazy the claim that every effort gives you something of value. Obviously. The LTV doesn't make that claim though. Most of your "fallacies" are incorrect simplifications of the labor theory of value. The claim is that an object's value is increased over that of its material inputs solely by the addition of labor. Labor includes logistical planning, warehousing, moving, marketing, etc. That doesn't mean that all labor produces value or that value is determined solely by labor input. Marx went to great lengths to explain the difference between price and value. I do agree that labor can't explain *everything* about how an object is valued. I think Marx would too. But labor remains one of the most important inputs of a product's value. >In contrast, the free market relies on voluntary trading. Do you mean idealized free markets or actually existing free markets? Because in the not too distant past quite a lot of capitalist businesses relied on chattel slavery, and wage slavery is still very much a thing. Not to mention that the American government has invested quite a lot of money into supporting brutal dictatorships to avoid having commies nearby. Look up Operation Condor. >The labor theory is inherently hostile to the consumer Consumerism is inherently hostile to human flourishing. >A manager brings great value to his organizational ability, anticipation and management ability. The capitalist is not always a manager and a manager is not always a capitalist. Additionally managers are often more of an impediment to work than a boon. >The profits are his a legitimate reward for risking your capital in an uncertain and changing world.

>>26781 > I think Marx would too. But labor remains one of the most important inputs of a product's value. It is this point that makes all the rest irrelevant. Because people pay you for efficiency, not swinging a shovel and shifting from pile to pile. I wrote about it earlier: >>26637 > For the employer, what matters most is the generated effect, not the level of commitment or health loss. Since you're unable to disprove it, the topic is eligible for closure.

>>26785 What? >Because people pay you for efficiency, not swinging a shovel and shifting from pile to pile. They pay you for both things. I have literally been paid for swinging a shovel and shifting from pile to pile. >> For the employer, what matters most is the generated effect, not the level of commitment or health loss. Yes, the effect generated *from labor*. >Since you're unable to disprove it, the topic is eligible for closure. Lmao what

>>26787 >I have literally been paid for swinging a shovel and shifting from pile to pile. and now compare your earnings to jobs that have commercial potential. Do you see the difference? > Yes, the effect generated *from labor*. first there has to be someone who will appreciate it and pay for it. My sewing machine is standing and making no money on its own, strange.

>>26677 I was thinking 12AM to 16PM, lain. 8 hours a day is what I do here in my soykafhole and this is still pretty much capitalism.

I know very little about communism (perhaps I will follow links in this thread [when I have more free time]), but I do live in a capitalist country. Some quick thoughts: Capitalist proponents seem to think 'capitalism' is a natural state of human affairs and communism is antagonistic towards this. State- and capitalist-violence is consistently exerted to keep capitalism running, which seems to point to capitalism not being a stable equilibrium. Under capitalism money is labor divorced from body (a fiction). This results in absurd realities where small groups or individuals can command the labor of entire countries. Money begets money: another absurd reality. Advocates for capitalism seem to think of themselves as capitalists. I'd argue that if you sell your labor then you most definitely are not a capitalist, but a wage-slave. Capitalists make their "living" from their capital. They do not engage in wage-slavery. They are the masters who pay the wage-slaves. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my end. The point of capitalism is that the holder of capital does not need to labor themselves as they have a reserve of labor (capital). (Interesting reversal of 'lazy communist just wants free stuff'.) Under capitalism there _must_ be a lower class (the wage-slaves) who are involuntarily forced into selling their labor. The capitalist society is designed to ensure such a class exists at all times. Technological advancements have eased the burden on this exploited class of peoples. The greater technological advancements have not come from private enterprises, but state-directed (and thus funded by the public) research whose fruits are pawed off to private enterprise. Society is artificial, and being a wage-slave I would rather live in a society in which wage-slaves have more say in its running rather than being at the mercy of large holders of capital. There is no self-governance under capitalism, just complete and utter submission to capital. Work bears no relation to compensation, but hierarchy does. The closer you are to the money supply the more your work is "worth". That's a funni. From Wikipedia: Directors of Fortune 500 companies received median pay of $234,000 in 2011. Directorship is a part-time job. A recent National Association of Corporate Directors study found directors averaging just 4.3 hours a week on board work. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees) Being a poor living in a poor (yet capitalist) country this seems outrageous.

>>26806 >Capitalist proponents seem to think 'capitalism' is a natural state of human affairs and communism is antagonistic towards this. True https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylogism >State- and capitalist-violence is consistently exerted to keep capitalism running, which seems to point to capitalism not being a stable equilibrium. The black market exists and is doing quite well. Apparently, people do not need the state, since no repression distracts them from creating it. >Under capitalism money is labor divorced from body (a fiction). This results in absurd realities where small groups or individuals can command the labor of entire countries. Money begets money: another absurd reality. explain why it's absurd. > I'd argue that if you sell your labor then you most definitely are not a capitalist, but a wage-slave. False. Exploitation, in your reasoning, is dog money that the state appropriates from these evil capitalists, which will ultimately affect the workers. It is wrong to assume that the capitalists are the causes of bad wages and not the effects of them. The cause is state theft, with the result that the capitalists pay less than they could. So the whole logic of "exploitation" is fuarrrked up. Of course, you will say right away that the difference can be kept to himself. And this is also the case, mainly because there is no competition that would give cheaper, so due to the lack of pressure they have no reason to lower it. > The point of capitalism is that the holder of capital does not need to labor themselves as they have a reserve of labor (capital). False. capital does not automatically make you rich. >>26788 > first there has to be someone who will appreciate it and pay for it Since you are unable to disprove it, there is no point in further discussion.

Man respects his bosses enough to keep the veil on even when off hours, while posting on an imageboard

>>26618 historical necessity

>>26834 it was >>26626 >I have no influence on it. I'm not and cannot be responsible for what my ancestors did.

>>26609 I dislike you all immensely. Communism won't help the fact that booms and busts always happen. Come up with an excuse for forced labor, aka, what communism is basically run on. fuarrrk off and die. For real. You are absolute devils.

>>26878 Chill, this thread stuck because nobody can prove LTV

>>26880 Meta discussion is off topic. >>26878 >Come up with an excuse for forced labor, aka, what communism is basically run on. Every system runs on forced labor - in global capitalism developed countries use forced labor in third world countries to produce goods. The prosperity of developed countries is an illusion made possible mainly because of stealing and exploiting. Imagine the prices of electronics, clothes, coffee, tea, oil, etc. without using the aid of third world countries. If you don't work and are rich then someone has to do your work for you.

>>26881 >exploiting. again it was >>26808 > alse. Exploitation, in your reasoning, is dog money that the state appropriates from these evil capitalists, which will ultimately affect the workers. It is wrong to assume that the capitalists are the causes of bad wages and not the effects of them. The cause is state theft, with the result that the capitalists pay less than they could. So the whole logic of "exploitation" is fuarrrked up. invent something new.

>>26882 How naive you have to be to believe that capitalists would willingly raise the wages if they didn't have to? Rich people have enough money to raise the wages even after taxation, they don't because they prefer to be rich. The other reason is that if you underpay your workers they become more dependent on you and they won't suddenly become rich enough to leave you. Also >poor capitalists owning gold mines in Africa don't have the money to pay the workers :( Yeah, I totally believe that mining gold or diamonds is so unprofitable that they can't give their workers fair living conditions and education. And implying companies like Amazon or Apple pay their taxes.

>>26881 >Every system runs on forced labor - in global capitalism developed countries use forced labor in third world countries to produce goods. You have the choice to not use forced labor and they can leave. Stop your oppressive nonsense.

>>26886 > How naive you have to be to believe that capitalists would willingly raise the wages if they didn't have to? again, it was > Of course, you will say right away that the difference can be kept to himself. And this is also the case, mainly because there is no competition that would give cheaper, so due to the lack of pressure they have no reason to lower it. maybe read the entire thread before writing anything.

>>26887 >You have the choice to not use forced labor Not using forced labor makes the prices of a company not competitive because the products are not affordable for an average consumer. You can resign from using goods like coffee or tea but hardly anyone can stop using computers these days - they're required for work. Would you pay 10 times the price for all your electronics? Rare earth metals are mined in conflict zones using slave or near-to-slave labor, clean river sand used to produce high-purity silicon wafers is scarce and therefore often stolen from poorer countries, devices are assembled using cheap labor in developing countries - all this drives the price down. People are selfish and they will always pick the cheaper product of the same quality despite it being a product of slave labor. >and they can leave. If they could they'd leave already. In third world countries jobs like mining bare hands or working for a big plantation for pennies are often the only sources of income. Low competition + no education of workers + high social inequalities = basically feudalism Using cheap labor from poor countries is feudalism. Capitalism can work only if there's high competition (low inequalities among the players), which is not the case if you look at the global situation (few). >Stop your oppressive nonsense. What do you exactly mean by this? Every system forces people to work because otherwise they die. Leaving the system is equal to dying. Is exposing that oppressive? Even if you run away to live in a forest you still have to work.

>>26893 >People are selfish and they will always pick the cheaper product of the same quality despite it being a product of slave labor. AGAIN, it was >>26637 >Of course. Recently, there has been growing consumer awareness of killing animals and eating meat. If you want to change something, you have to educate people, then they will vote the most powerful tool in capitalism - the wallet. Just GFTO and don't come back if you can't read the entire thread.

>>26881 >Meta discussion is off topic. still i wait on prove LTV. without it, communism makes no sense like the whole thread.

>>26893 >Not using forced labor makes the prices of a company not competitive because the products are not affordable for an average consumer. Lol, no, please, do some goddamn research. Ethical products exist as you have said but no, they will not ALWAYS buy the cheaper option. Nor do I want anything from a communist country where ALL are oppressed. >>26893 >Using cheap labor from poor countries is feudalism. Capitalism can work only if there's high competition (low inequalities among the players), which is not the case if you look at the global situation (few). You need to realize that there will be people that see opportunity and create a better life for people on the lower end. Communism beyond doesn't solve this issue, to think so is utterly braindead. Wait, arguing with you is a fool's errand because you're a goddamn communist. No amount of sense will ever come through to you since you think that will or choice doesn't exist. >What do you exactly mean by this? Every system forces people to work because otherwise they die. Leaving the system is equal to dying. Is exposing that oppressive? Even if you run away to live in a forest you still have to work. Freedom of will you utter subhuman bugman slave oppressor.

it is amazing to me that people can justify genocide by simply saying "those people we kill, they are the oppressors!"

>>26901 the formula of fundamentalism is definitional retreat >>26760 tldr; they use polylogism which literally reject logic and exchange it for ad personam. Case closed. It's is like kicking dead whales down the beach. ts;wm OP is simply a polylogist, just like all Marxist fuarrrkers. You can't get along with him because he doesn't want you to get along with him. By assumption, he recognizes that everyone except him displays "false consciousness" and that their concepts are the product of class origins or some other of interest. Therefore, we can stop counting on any goodwill on his part, or assume that his attitude is a manifestation of naivety or inadvertent recklessness of a dilettante and forgive ourselves trying to reach an agreement, because there are no such commies here and there will not be such. Further conversation does not make any sense, because we will not learn anything new from him, and he does not care about finding the truth about reality, giving a chance to find out who is right, but infusing himself with an ideological stick based on the concepts he has just invented in order to provoke antagonism. I think that if someone adopts polylogism in their attitude, they should automatically exclude it from any debates and disqualify it as a debater, because they are not really polylogism, and they use speech for other purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with cognition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylogism Von mises: > Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is the attitude of mentally retarded fanatics who cannot imagine that anyone could be more rational or clever than themselves. Also, polylogism is not scientific. Rather, it is replacing reasoning and learning with prejudices. This is a distinctive feature of the chaos age mentality.

>>26894 I did read that response and I'm not satisfied with it. Education often doesn't work and people just laugh at you or say they don't care if you tell them about an important issue. Read a book about evolution because you don't really seem to understand the mechanisms of natural selection. Just because there's an ethical alternative doesn't mean the alternative will dominate the entire population. If you eliminated poverty (I doubt it given the ecological debt we're facing since 1970) and educated everyone then free market could fix that, but not any time sooner. >>26900 >Lol, no, please, do some goddamn research. I watched a documentary movie about Fair Trade and similar certifications. They're often badly implemented or even scams - it's easy to tell your product is ethical while using slave labor. >Ethical products exist as you have said but no, they will not ALWAYS buy the cheaper option. I don't have money to buy these products and there are many people like me, what are you going to do about it? People who don't have money won't rush to buy ethical products even if they're aware of the issue. Your self-regulating pipe dream breaks here because of the sole existence of poor people. A success of a corporation in capitalism is determined mainly by the amount of money it owns and cheating is profitable - ethical corporations are quickly eliminated because of their lower income. Isn't that basic Game Theory? What if cheating is an Evolutionarily stable strategy? Self-regulating mechanisms, including free market can reach local maximums. >You need to realize that there will be people that see opportunity and create a better life for people on the lower end. I know that and I know such people myself. They're filtered by the system because profit-focused society is not willing to fund something that would remove many useless jobs and make the world better in the end. >Communism beyond doesn't solve this issue, to think so is utterly braindead. Depends on what you call communism exactly. I'm more of a socialist than a commie but whatever. A well-tuned centralized system could do the job if designed properly but it's hard to do such a thing. The problem is greedy people rule, the system is no different from slavery. >Wait, arguing with you is a fool's errand because you're a goddamn communist. No amount of sense will ever come through to you since you think that will or choice doesn't exist. Certainly not your arguments. Better give me a good economy book I can read instead of your ad hominem. >Freedom of will you utter subhuman bugman slave oppressor. Ah, yes the freedom of will to leave the system and die, I'm sure that will work.

>>26901 I too wonder why slaves who owned nothing and worked for someone else for centuries decided to kill their their masters. Do you have any idea?

>>26920 citing history without context, it's cancer. do it right and give an example.

>>26919 >I did read that response and I'm not satisfied with it. Education often doesn't work and people just laugh at you or say they don't care if you tell them about an important issue. Read a book about evolution because you don't really seem to understand the mechanisms of natural selection. Just because there's an ethical alternative doesn't mean the alternative will dominate the entire population. If you eliminated poverty (I doubt it given the ecological debt we're facing since 1970) and educated everyone then free market could fix that, but not any time sooner. THOU have to fix it as an individual person. Nobody will do it for thee. Thine problems are not society's problems.

>>26921 I hope you can read Polish. If not then just know peasants were basically a property of Nobility - they couldn't walk away from a bad master (because of the law) and they worked almost the whole week for the master and only one day for themselves (which was not enough for anything). Tell me how being a property and working for free 6 days a week is not slavery? I'm not sure how it was in other countries but I assume it was similar everywhere. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pa%C5%84szczyzna_w_Polsce >W 1520 r. sejm postanowił, że każdy chłop musi co najmniej jeden dzień w tygodniu przepracować bez zapłaty w folwarku swego pana. W Polsce w późniejszym okresie wprowadzono naliczanie pańszczyzny od wielkości gruntu posiadanego przez chłopa za pomocą dni w tygodniu przypadających na łan – np. pańszczyzna 4 dni od łana tygodniowo oznaczała, że chłop mający połowę łana miał odpracować u pana 2 dni na każdy tydzień, a posiadacz 1 łanu – 4 dni; ponadto chłop nie musiał odpracowywać wyłącznie sam pańszczyzny – jeśli przez 1 dzień pracował wraz z 2 synami powyżej określonego wieku i 1 parobkiem, to zaliczano mu 4 dni. W XVII w. pańszczyzna osiągała wymiar 6 dni pracy darmowej tygodniowo.

>>26923 communism by definition was supposed to be stateless ... hmm ..

>>26924 What are you reading exactly because certainly not what I quoted? I quoted how feudalism in Poland in XVII century was basically slavery - paying 85% taxes to your master (the rest likely went to the church), owning nothing and being a property. Would you not do an uprising against your master/government if you were to pay 85% taxes and was a property?

>>26918 >>26920 I wasn't talking about comunists, I was talking about "anti-communists" who think that it is valid to kill people because they think communism is evil.

>>26925 >What are you reading exactly because certainly not what I quoted? it's you: > be commie > i want argue that capitalism is bad > give an example where the goverment required people to work for free welcome, retard.

>>26919 >I watched a documentary movie about Fair Trade and similar certifications. They're often badly implemented or even scams - it's easy to tell your product is ethical while using slave labor. Do you think that the government, one that does a lot in secret, is going to solve the issue? No. Period. No. >I don't have money to buy these products and there are many people like me, what are you going to do about it? People who don't have money won't rush to buy ethical products even if they're aware of the issue. If you are in america, you have almost no excuse. If you're in debt, that's your own fault. >A success of a corporation in capitalism is determined mainly by the amount of money it owns and cheating is profitable - ethical corporations are quickly eliminated because of their lower income. Not every company is Google or Microsoft. You have a really skewed perspective. There are so many options in business and freedom to do what you please. That's why I'm such a passionate proponent. I feel that people like you are pushing for more government control under the impression that you can turn government into a socailist/communist system, instead, you are making the US akin to China. A state that preaches socialist/communist platitudes but does nothing but the oppressive garbage in promise that eventually they'll get to their goals. When will that come? Keep waiting. Cheating on the other hand, have you seen outright scams of companies? No. Other than insurance, backed by the government btw, there aren't many scams. Whenever I buy new products that don't align to my standards I DO NOT BUY THEM. They in turn, fail. Honesty in products is rewarded. Period. End of story. I used to think like you. Try to scam, try. It will not scale. >I know that and I know such people myself. They're filtered by the system because profit-focused society is not willing to fund something that would remove many useless jobs and make the world better in the end. Keep giving up. Keep making excuses. Shell of a human. The government will definitely help when there are no options for the individual to change things by his/her own will. (sarcasm) I keep calling you names because this entire movement against capitalism is so daft. It's like trying to make a country primitivist. It's not going to happen. Though, what will happen is that the government will intervene in capitalism and prop up corps that deserve to die in the name of "welfare." Keep on printing money based on nothing. Keep going into debt and doing mostly everything wrong with modern day "capitalism" that you like to complain about. >Depends on what you call communism exactly. I'm more of a socialist than a commie but whatever. A well-tuned centralized system could do the job if designed properly but it's hard to do such a thing. Glad you realize that. The only way to properly design a system is to not at all, hence less government power, minarchy. >The problem is greedy people rule, the system is no different from slavery. You underestimate people. Or you could be an atheist. You do know that many people are religious right? Or they have empathy? Just stating that all rich people and all that aspire to start a company are in it to cheat is kinda weird. Especially since a ton of american billionaires have pledged most of their money. Although, yes, some corps are disgusting in the way that they do things and how uncaring they are for individual freedoms; I'd like to say that I'd rather have the option to create something to fix that. Unlike most, I'd actually like to take action and create something better. You can do that, everyone can, that's the beauty of capitalism. If someone creates something better, it wins out. Don't go into how some tools are better than others in function. Everything counts, including design/marketing. Again, I implore you to start your own company. You will soon realize that not going about it properly and cheating are almost never rewarded. Unless you're at a bank or insurance company. Things that are bound endlessly by government regulation and other state garbage. >Better give me a good economy book I can read instead of your ad hominem. Read legit any book. Read investopedia, it doesn't matter. Just understand that demand is not always by how cheap something is or how much you cheat. That's completely naïve. Ignorant actually. Look at apple. They're not cheap. So this begs the question as to why they're one of THE biggest companies. >Ah, yes the freedom of will to leave the system and die, I'm sure that will work. Invest in your government-backed stock market that goes up constantly. Your retirement plan, your 401k. Start up a business. Sell a book. Get on welfare. Benefit from charity. Buy a boat and live off the sea. Alternatively, pick up a survival guide of how to survive in the wild and slowly build upon it. Make houses and stuff by yourself. Homesteading is pretty cool ngl. Just saying that you haven't put any effort into coming up with solutions. Communism/socialism provides a bugman excuse. Like, you can go through life on autopilot and come to that conclusion. Not coming up with anything by yourself and following what others say.

>>26942 I plan on letting this stand, I'm gonna do something else. Hope you realize how dangerous those ideologies are.

>>26942 > Again, I implore you to start your own company. it's clou each marxist. they cannot earn, so they try to create propaganda which would enable them to parasitize. > Where does Marx's aversion or disgust towards "capital" come from? What led him to view wealth and entrepreneurship as wrong? It was by no means a concern for the workers, as some still want to maintain. The answers must again be sought in the youthful years of the future "liberator" of the proletariat. Well, young Karol was completely unable to manage his money. He spent money thoughtlessly, had to borrow a lot. It got him into debt and, over time, into the hands of moneylenders. He often asked his family and friends for help to finance his maintenance. At first it was the father, then the wife of Jenny, and finally Engels. Here, it can be maliciously interjected that his ideological successors were left with this trait - how often even today we observe inspired socialists who come from wealthy homes and do not have to work honestly and hard to support themselves. Instead, they prefer to indulge in intellectual quackery, fall into cheap moralizing, every now and then find new recipes for solving all the problems of this world ... But since their ideological father already showed such traits ... reveal the origins of ideas ”and many may feel offended that Marx can be pointed at such down-to-earth premises for his activity. The wife's wealth initially gave them about £ 200 a year, which was roughly three times the annual wage of a skilled worker. No matter how much money it was possible to live in peace, Marx was able to squander it, still in debt. Despite this approach to life, he was always able to find a host, like a purebred leech. When Engels supported him, Marx could even afford such "bourgeois" behavior as holding the service. Marx's anti-Semitism is an extremely interesting thread. It is completely ignored by its admirers, and the matter requires at least a brief explanation. In a man of Jewish origin, anti-Semitism seems to be something extremely strange and difficult to comprehend. However, when one examines the intellectual paths along which Marx took to condemn all economic activity, we come to the surprising conclusion - in his opinion, it is the Jews that are responsible for the evil of capitalism. Why? In the rationalist understanding of man and society, evil has a social character, resulting from specific and given conditions in which society lives. In order to repair society, it is enough to remove the cause of evil. With Marx, they were Jews, or more precisely, Jewish capitalists. It has been known for many centuries that Jews demonstrated an excellent ability to do business. Marx believed that it was the Jews who imposed their attitude towards money upon the whole world and asked rhetorically in the essay On the Jewish Question: What is the secular cult of the Jew? Trade. What is his secular god? Money". It is impossible not to mention here his other words, in which he defined the means of salvation from such an approach: "Emancipation from trade and money, and therefore from practical, real Jewry would be the self-emancipation of our times." Such words would not be ashamed of the chief ideologist of the NSDAP, Alfred Rosenberg, and even Hitler himself. In time, Marx - in the years 1844-1846 - would transfer the aversion and hatred towards the trading "Jewry" to the bourgeoisie as a whole. Source: https://www.redisbad.pl/pl/n/Zlowrogi-cien-marksizmu/4 The same thing connects every other area of life: socialist states, intellectual property, murdering people unfavorable to ideology. as you can see that >>26618 to destroy them, all you have to do is ask about something that was not in their bible. And they can't answer on this question because none communist knows this and their guru, the marx, doesn't know it either. instead, certain poetic abilities of Marx enabled him to skillfully juggle words in the future and use them to seduce people. There is perhaps nothing so deadly about Marxism and all its derivatives as words to which Marxists of all varieties give new meanings. Marx's verbal fetishism is the essence of Marxist dialectics and a powerful force that continues to seduce masses of people who expect simple recipes for all the world's problems. In other words, the essence of communist ideology is a definational retreat. Like here >>26627 > What I mean by that is: it is easier for someone rich to become richer than for someone poor to become rich. and here: >>26634 > Incidentally, those who exploit includes almost all, if not all, of the ultra-rich. In addition, they mask their own incompetence, using other people.: >>26643 classic whataboutism. People like Marx and others like him, who purportedly speak on behalf of the wronged people, despise them in their hearts because they are ordered to do so by intellectual snobbery. Nice that rabbit hole of fallacious reasoning, right?

>>26953 He has his own issues but hes right about >it is easier for someone rich to become richer than for someone poor to become rich. Flat fees consume less of a higher stack. This means poor users investing identical to rich users get lower returns % and thus see never the same growth. In addition good tax constructs cost over 100k which means they become only viable when your yearly income is at least above a million. Financial illiterate poor users are the main issue of this whole situation. The fed wouldn't even exist without retards doing the bank rush. And now they print money and distribute among themselves propping up their big corps while the poor users cheer on lockdown killing what was left of smaller biz killing the remaining minority who had a minuscule understanding of how things work and offered an outlet outside getting wringed by megacorps. Poor users are the problem of this whole situation and everyone exploiting them is doing the right thing. They deserve to be treated like the cattle that they are.

>>26954 Yes, unfortunately this is another criticism of the goerment and not capitalism itself, like here >>26923 The gov has done a great trick. > make adjustments "market" > not working? Blame the free market.

>>26956 its not a matter of capitalism or government. A population unable to make sensible decisions will meet its demise under any system because they are ultimately unable to take steps in preserving their own interests. Trying to fix broken gears by rearranging them in a different system will never succeed. These ideological fights are completely blind to the core issue.

>>26958 it was, again >>26644

>Communism bad because people have been killed in its name It’s interesting how capitalism avoids the same criticism by just naming the negative traits and realities capitalism promotes and rewards a few for having. It’s always greed or profit that is supposedly responsible for things like easily prevented industrial disasters or huge economic crashes that kill thousands via suicide alone, implicitly claiming that only individuals can be responsible for personal actions, not that as a system, capitalism very blatantly relies on such actions to see the success people claim capitalism is superior for apparently providing. Communism could and did have its own explanations for why the ideology itself is not inherently murderous, it’s just a simple fact that property owners and profiteers don’t give that soykaf up willingly no matter how many people peacefully agree it should be owned collectively. The reality is that the defence of private property is what kills people, either through abusing it to profit off of imposed famines to ensure your property is worth ever more, or by getting police, the military or just the entire state willing to kill thousands to stop other people from having it themselves or even just to ensure it’s still worth even more every year.

>>26970 > It’s interesting how capitalism avoids the same criticism by just naming the negative traits and realities capitalism promotes and rewards a few for having. Capitalism cannot reward anything. People do it. Without people, your property has no commercial value. > Communism could and did have its own explanations for why the ideology itself is not inherently murderous, it’s just a simple fact that property owners and profiteers don’t give that soykaf up willingly no matter how many people peacefully agree it should be owned collectively. and therefore it's anti-evolutionary ideology. >The reality is that the defence of private property is what kills people, either through abusing it to profit off of imposed famines to ensure your property is worth ever more property doesn't create any power because no one manages it as in commie models.

>>26971 > property doesn't create any power Come on now, even the most basic form of property is being a landlord, and that absolutely provides power if there is no free alternative to prevent homelessness and housing is treated as an investment commodity where no one will sell for less than they paid.

>>26973 Not him but youre still under supply vs demand. Owning property has only value when there's demand. The native population fuarrrked up when it tolerated immigration because that''s what gave value to property by increasing demand. Kill influx and you will have property owners compete for you instead of you going through a hiring process for the privilege to pay them rent.

>>26973 BS >>26707 again it was

>>26976 How is that a solution? If you ban immigration it’s not like those people suddenly stop existing (as much as lolbertarians wish that were the case) and they’re very often emigrating due to a lack of housing (often because the countries they’re emigrating to manufactured the bombs that demolished their home) so there’s still power at play there clearly. And on the matter of supply and demand, you realise that’s not a naturally perfected constant state of affairs like, say, precipitation right? The demand here is not “ah I don’t fancy paying rent, I’d rather sleep on the street” and everybody is happy. We need to see homeless on the streets and news articles about housing crises, so people know demand outstrips supply, even though in reality it really doesn’t, to increase the perceived value of housing. On the matter of supply, housing also isn’t a natural occurrence either and needs to be manufactured, normally supply and demand is used to justify high prices for naturally scarce materials and services like gold or commissioning a master artist. Housing is not hard to produce, but it relies on people who already have the capital to invest in it, but who is mostly likely to invest in housing? Naturally people who already earn capital from housing already, but why would they want to make their commodity less scarce? Why would they pay to make their current property less valuable? They could after all just invest in politicians who will trash social housing projects and promote lower taxes to ensure that demand for housing turns into desperation. So you see? It’s nothing to do with refugees and everything to do with what’s profitable for those who already have capital, and even if you think you think your six figure salary makes you one of those people and you’re just protecting your “class”, it doesn’t.

>>26982 >Housing is not hard to produce it actually kind of is. I mean it's easier to make than a computer chip but it takes a lot of logistical work, expertise, and manual labor to put up a solid building, and good land is pretty expensive. Plus you have to factor in the fact that in some places there actually is just not enough room. In my town they're really hesitant to give out building permits because the water supply can barely handle the amount of people we already have. >>26976 >owning property has only value when there's demand I would say that even if nobody else wanted my land, it would still be valuable, because I would use it. >Kill influx and you will have property owners compete for you instead of you going through a hiring process for the privilege to pay them rent. A lot of it is internal immigration. Think of the story of the kid from the middle of nowhere who got a job at a san francisco tech company selling bullshit. That's a very common story. They're usually in a completely different housing market to external immigrants, who usually move in to their enclave, where the rules are different.

>>26985 >actually it kind of is Well not in the way that scarce commodities are, it’s laborious, requires a lot of materials and logistics to produce housing, sure, but it’s an endlessly repeatable process with a minuscule failure rate. It can be even simpler with Soviet style prefabs which admittedly gets sneered at for being ugly and undesirable, but it’s nevertheless a superior alternative to homelessness and such buildings that are socially owned do have a knock on affect for the prices of private leases. The bottom end of the market for private lease must compete with a free alternative. If the alternative to not paying rent to a landlord is a small two room flat and not homelessness, then that rebalances things back towards supply and demand, not private command and desperation as so many industries are under capitalism, not just housing.

>>26982 you make it a heart throb issue when its more than just that. All the cheap good places get destroyed by foreign capital. Tourism places make the best example as can go through this in a few years. You start out with a cheap place with lots of nature and real value, some people dig it up and start tourism, then the tourism spikes and they destroy everything to put houses for more tourists while the prices go up like a rocket for everything. And land is a fixed resource. I dont want a cage i want some space which is a fixed limited resource. Your population grows to large you end up like tokyo or china where people enjoy having less space than jail inmates.

>>26988 >>26988 >Well not in the way that scarce commodities are I don't follow? There is a limited amount of land and timber and labor. You cannot make infinite housing. You can make *enough* housing, and I agree that rent seeking is inherently parasitic and they control the supply, but to say that housing is not a scarce resource is just incorrect.

>>26990 From an investor point you always invest what brings most returns. So naturally housing wont see investments until its the most profitable option which means they will never make it cheap as whenever profit starts falling you go elsewhere. Asking them to lose money for you is basically asking for charity from a profit-driven venture. A different issue is speculation. Unused apartments & land is bought and speculated upon lying dead because the investor thinks they can resell higher later. In the meantime nobody gets to use these resources which cuts off supply. I dont think its right to force anyone to invest as you wish but it certainly should be fine prohibiting hoarding empty buildings. Especially as there already land rules that fordb doing whatever you want with land you buy.

>>26991 >Asking them to lose money for you is basically asking for charity from a profit-driven venture. I would never ask them for that. As you say, it would be like asking a snake to become vegetarian. I simply think that housing should not be a profit-driven venture.

>>26992 > I simply think that housing should not be a profit-driven venture. why do you think profit is bad?

>>26994 I think that it is bad when basic necessities like housing are ruled by a parasitic landlord class.

>>26989 To be honest, it sounds like you’re the one making it a heart throb issue by saying the problem is not gentrification as a result of evermore profit seeking over the necessity of housing by people who own it all privately, and instead making it about muh foreigners fuarrrk off we’re full and you’re taking our homes. Even with all the immigrants to the US, there’s enough empty housing to end homelessness, and there’s huge regions of the US that are not yet developed because all the capital and investment is tied up in the major financial sectors. As in land isn’t actually rare and overpopulation isn’t a thing, it’s just we’re waiting for it to be profitable to build new urban centres in areas that are currently remote and for that to be more profitable than just owning some pre-existing housing in NYC or San Francisco where the capital and investment in industry already is.

>>26996 >As in land isn’t actually rare usable land is rare. Extending urban sprawl into swamps and mountain ranges and deserts is a terrible solution. You don't need to make yet another soykafty cookie-cutter suburb to solve a housing crisis. You just need to invest in decent urban planning and densification of already existing cities.

>>26995 wanker. It was, again >>26707 You keep saying the same crap over and over again without having the slightest idea what you're talking about.

>>26996 We have different perspectives due our origin. Im from a tsmaller country with no space. You wont find a single square mile without people using it. Meanwhile us has lawless cities without government interference in middle of nowhere making tv because it has so much space. As for gentrification - you cant control where the money goes or even private people giving up farmland to plant hotels and fuarrrking up the overall value of the region as they participate in the process to keep up with inflation. Controlling influx to stop the entire process is the simplest solution. Its how gov does things - you dont tell people what to do. You set the rules so they do what you want automatically.

>>26609 >>Marx predicted this 150 years ago. Liberal states, through media and education, have ensured that Marx's voice gets drowned out. But!, you cannot argue against science. You cannot defeat reality. As a someone living in a former socialist country (which is still struggling to resolve and transition from this legacy) and as a fan of David Simon's work, I have the need to post this quote and article: >I think Marx was a much better diagnostician than he was a clinician. >He was good at figuring out what was wrong or what could be wrong with capitalism if it wasn't attended to and much less credible when it comes to how you might solve that. >You know if you've read Capital or if you've got the Cliff Notes, you know that his imaginings of how classical Marxism – of how his logic would work when applied – kind of devolve into such nonsense as the withering away of the state and platitudes like that. But he was really sharp about what goes wrong when capital wins unequivocally, when it gets everything it asks for. >That may be the ultimate tragedy of capitalism in our time, that it has achieved its dominance without regard to a social compact, without being connected to any other metric for human progress. >(...) >Capitalism stomped the hell out of Marxism by the end of the 20th century and was predominant in all respects, but the great irony of it is that the only thing that actually works is not ideological, it is impure, has elements of both arguments and never actually achieves any kind of partisan or philosophical perfection. >It's pragmatic, it includes the best aspects of socialistic thought and of free-market capitalism and it works because we don't let it work entirely. And that's a hard idea to think – that there isn't one single silver bullet that gets us out of the mess we've dug for ourselves. But man, we've dug a mess. I highly recommend the rest of the talk: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire (edited extract) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNttT7hDKsk

>>26953 communism is for losers which they cannot earn money, change my mind

>>26711 >The road to Serfdom. Utterly irrelevant and a misunderstanding of class character. The depiction of Labour in a socialist society being equivalent to a Serf in in feudal and post-feudal Europe is ridiculous and misunderstands the economy of both feudalism and socialism Feudalism and serfdom relied on a two class society of owners and labourers which didn't exist and dosen't exist in socialist societies that exist today >>26878 >Communism wont stop the fact that Booms and Busts happen. The USSR literally dodged the entire great-depression because they just used it as an excuse to fully nationalise all sources of production and distribution. >Come up with an excuse for forced labor, aka, what communism is basically run on. Very few to Nil socialist economies that exist or existed relied on "forced" labour is there any evidence of this?

>>27003 And this is why people hate modern capitalism - its communism for megacorps & banks on your pocket dime.

>>27002 As a socialist, I think Marx is very overrated. Important of course, but overrated. People treating his words as gospel are silly. We've actually had significant long-lasting socialist states to learn from since he died! >>27003 I have hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings and job security, so I can definitely earn money (and so can the socialist co-workers I've met in similar-paying roles), so I can vouch for that being wrong. Bringing the bottom parts of society upwards reduces desperation for money simply to survive and provide (and as a result, reduces petty/violent crime, which decreases your and your friends' and family' chances of being assaulted or robbed) and increases medical accessibility (reduces spread of disease, reduces impact to economy of injured/sick workers) among other things. Capitalism optimizes society for individuals to achieve financial success. I believe this is a foolish social goal and furthermore, optimizing for success of individuals or small companies clearly hasn't resulted in success to the overall society. Why should a society encourage such an ideology which optimizes for exploitation?

>Capitalism optimizes society for individuals to achieve financial success In the struggle for personal success companies use regulatory capture to kill competition and naturally also minimize the wagies earning potential to increase their own profit. But the problem isnt this process but the people who let it happen. A competition only works when you compete and most people lack the capitalist mindset. Its fuarrrking insane how they defend corps over their own interests.

>>27017 >People treating his words as gospel are silly. >exploitation? meanwhile: >>26808 > Exploitation, in your reasoning, is dog money that the state appropriates from these evil capitalists, which will ultimately affect the workers. It is wrong to assume that the capitalists are the causes of bad wages and not the effects of them. The cause is state theft, with the result that the capitalists pay less than they could. So the whole logic of "exploitation" is fuarrrked up. > Of course, you will say right away that the difference can be kept to himself. And this is also the case, mainly because there is no competition that would give cheaper, so due to the lack of pressure they have no reason to lower it. it was, AGAIN! Why commies are fuarrrking clones that talk a load of cock the same thing over and over again?

>>27019 It was not! It is wrong to assume that the capitalists would pay more than the could to workers if the state did not appropriate that money. We consistently see companies which make more and more profit, without the expected increases to average wages that would be reasonably expected from those profits. It is often the capitalists who cause bad wages. One state regulation is the minimum wage. Do you believe taking this away will increase wages? The state appropriation of money is, to some degree, exploitation. I agree! But that exploitation is much lesser and has many benefits to me and other members of society (maintenance of free-to-use services like roads, defense from other nations, defense from abusive companies via the (so-called) justice system, etc.) so, while not the best system, even that is better than the exploitation of the bourgeoisie. And you ignored all the other words!

>>27022 >Do you believe taking this away will increase wages? I don't believe it, I know this, because I know how economics works. The two most crucial economic phenomena - demand and supply - are basically enough to understand this. The commies clearly have a problem with that. Crashes the whole soykaf about LTV. > And you ignored all the other words! it was necessary to say something more original than what had already been said.

>>27018 Could one not conclude from what you've said, that capitalism is a system poorly suited to the majority of humans nature?

>>27025 Sure but how do you wish to fix it? What kind of system doesn't punish letting others decide for you? Ultimately does in leadership will be ambitious and act according to their own benefits which seldom align with yours.

>>27024 >The commies clearly have a problem with that. Crashes the whole soykaf about LTV. No, it does not. Not even Marx argued about the validity of supply and demand because the LTV has absolutely nothing to do with it. The LTV is about value, supply and demand determine the price. Value and price are not the same thing.

>>27027 so prove it. >>26788 > first there has to be someone who will appreciate it and pay for it.

>>27028 >so prove it. Prove what, that value and price are different things? There's nothing to prove. Value is the socially necessary labor time used in the production of a commodity. Price is the monetary expression of exchange value. Exchange value determines what a commodity can be exchanged for (1 table = 2 chairs), use value determines if a commodity has a use. A mud pie, for example, has no use value because it is not a commodity, no matter how much labor goes into making said mud pie. Air has a use value, but has no value as no labor goes into its production and there is no market for it.

>>27029 >Air has a use value, but has no value as no labor goes into its production and there is no market for it. Don't worry, they're working on it

>>27030 If you wanna go there hvac is a immense industry. Office plants are also sold on purifier capabilities. The most popular office plant the spider plant can air filter the fallout printers produce.

>>27029 it was here >>26778 > Value is the socially necessary labor time used in the production of a commodity. And it's essence LTV. No matter how much work you put into producing a commodity, only the effect counts. And only for this effect consumers pay. It doesn't make any logical sense anyway: no one knows if you put a job into it or if you just bought it from someone else. Who the fuarrrk cares.

>>27032 >It doesn't make any logical sense anyway: no one knows if you put a job into it or if you just bought it from someone else. Yes, but someone had to make it at some point. >Who the fuarrrk cares. Some people will pay more for "artisan" or "bespoke" things.

>>27032 >And it's essence LTV. No matter how much work you put into producing a commodity, only the effect counts. And only for this effect consumers pay. That's exactly what I said. >It doesn't make any logical sense anyway: no one knows if you put a job into it or if you just bought it from someone else. Who the fuarrrk cares. Someone has to have put in the necessary labor in order to produce the commodity being sold. Again, we're not talking about price. >>27033 >Some people will pay more for "artisan" or "bespoke" things. Yeah but that's besides the point, the difference in that case is in price, not value.

>>27034 >Yeah but that's besides the point, the difference in that case is in price, not value. If price is subjective and "value" has no affect on price then what's the point of your version of "value"?

>>27034 market value = price. Both are made up. Thats why marketing > product and why modern companies spend more on marketing than production.

>>27036 Your implication that all products are soykaf and everyone is just getting tricked into buying through marketing is wrong because people would just return the item and get their money back once they realize the product is soykaf. So clearly the advertising is actually adding emotional or social value to the product. Luxury cars for example, they're not just selling you a box on wheels, they are selling you the social status you'll receive when your friends and neighbors see you inside it. The way they create that perception of social status is through the marketing.

>>27035 >If price is subjective I never said price is subjective, the price of a commodity is determined by the market. >then what's the point of your version of "value"? It ties in to the extraction of surplus value by the capitalist from the workers.

>>27039 >I never said price is subjective, the price of a commodity is determined by the market. <Some people will pay more for "artisan" or "bespoke" things. >Yeah I assumed "yeah" meant you agreed but ok. How do you explain some people paying more than other people if what you call "price" is not subjective? >It ties in to the extraction of surplus value by the capitalist from the workers. But this theory of value has no affect on reality at all. You say "prices" are determined by the market. So what is the purpose of "value"? It is just an imaginary thing that evil capitalists steal from workers therefor workers need to be mad and do a revolution.

>>27038 >people would just return the item and get their money back once they realize the product is soykaf >neurosuggesting people are perfectly rational people dont want to admit they got scammed and rather pretend they did the right thing to protect their own ego. The easiest example of fake value is merchandise. Put a logo on it and sell the same cup for 5x to the retarded fan(atic)s. Sumpreme sold even a brick to see how far they could go for several thousand. When you say social value youre talking exactly about fabricated value that has nothing to do with the product. Branding is about turning consumers into cultists and marketing directly threats it as such pic related: https://pics.me.me/turn-customers-into-fanatics-products-into-obsessions-employees-into-ambassadors-65386541.png >>27039 The market is people which are subjective. You can have consensus with heavily traded goods like apple but paintings are just gauged by whatever the last one paid which means a single person sets the price which is why its popular for tax fraud. Resell between friends to raise its value then donate that pos painting to some museum and write off millions in taxes.

>>27042 >people dont want to admit they got scammed and rather pretend they did the right thing to protect their own ego. And people just keep going around getting scammed all the time without learning anything? Seems unlikely, fren. The simple facts are: 1. nobody is forcing you to make a trade 2. you can get your money back if you change your mind Therefor you have to conclude that both sides are happy and benefited from the trade. And as I explained, marketing can be part of the value being exchanged. >The easiest example of fake value is merchandise. You would rather have $10 than a hat with a logo on, and someone else would rather have the hat than $10. That doesn't mean one person is right and one person is wrong. All it means is that value is subjective. >The market is people which are subjective. Now explain how Marx's theory of "value" serves any purpose besides tricking workers into thinking they've been robbed.

>>27051 >no return = happy yeah sure, especially the customers who rant for years how X is soykaf and tell everyone to avoid it. Your premise is dumb and no you cant get your money back forever either. There are time limits. And then there's addiction. Like the lol addicts, doesnt take hard drugs. >That doesn't mean one person is right and one person is wrong. You are missing the entire point. When you pay for a brand you are not paying for the product. You are paying for marketing lying to you. Its literally pure retardation to think this is fine because its based on paying for getting tricked into valuing something more. Thats all branding is. And talking about social value isnt a counter point either. Thats just "everyone is retarded so play along". Lastly i dont give a soykaf about marx. I said already initially problem is plebs aren't capitalists. If they had a capitalist mindset they wouldn't pay for overpriced garbage and rather think how they can increase their own profit instead of doing charity work for corps.

>>27053 > When you pay for a brand you are not paying for the product. You are paying for marketing lying to you meanwhile, without marketing, no one can find out about your product. Retard

>>27054 First off they can and organic word of mouth is better which is where viral marketing came from. Secondary there a difference in making a product known and spending 80% of your budget on branding to upsell garbage for 10x the price. Literally too dumb to grasp basic soykaf on your own.

>>27055 So what? it does that mean everyone should do that like you?

>>27056 If tards didnt buy branding but solely product quality we would get better products. So yes, ideally everyone should for mass market products. For limited resources its good they cant tell better than follow branding - keeps the real valuable stuff cheap. Btw this is also part of the product cycle. You first create a good product, build reputation. Then lower quality and tards still continue to buy it based on brand value. Overall increases profits shortterm for at least several years and thats what its all about.

>>27053 >no you cant get your money back forever either. There are time limits. You said people are scammed by marketing. If that's true then people would return the product once the scam has been revealed. And they would not continue making the same purchases all through their lives. Your theory simply does not fit with reality. >You are missing the entire point. When you pay for a brand you are not paying for the product. I already explained this to you. The brand is part of the value. You are paying for the social status you receive from other people when they see you wearing the brand. >And talking about social value isnt a counter point either. Thats just "everyone is retarded so play along". Just because it's an abstract thing you can't touch doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Go to Piazza di Spagna in a Ferrari and a Fiat and see which car the girls flock to. Sure if you are a legless eunuch then a Ferrari has no social value for you. Not everyone is you though. Value is subjective. >Lastly i dont give a soykaf about marx. So you admit that the labor theory of value is wrong? Look at the knots you are tying yourself into to cling to this idea that everything has an objective value so all trades must be a scam for one side. It is completely disproved by that fact that trades still occur when they are voluntary, reversible and repeated.

>>27058 Ferrari is not just brand. It is a better car in pure stats. That said anyone smart with money doesnt drive ferrari. Its fun for a bit but then you swap it for something else exactly because it attracts the wrong people." I wanna drive ferrari" is poor people mentality. >objective value Who gives a soykaf about some objective truth? Bottom line is what benefits me? That's the capitalist way of thinking. And retards buying garbage because they fall for brand marketing doesn't benefit me unless its my soykaf they are buying because it means worse products as already stated previously.

>>27059 >Ferrari is not just brand. It is a better car in pure stats. Why can't you just address the central point instead of sperging around the details. I genuinely can't tell if you're on the spectrum or just trolling. >Who gives a soykaf about some objective truth? Are you >>27042 or not? If you can't defend your posts then the polite thing to do is admit you were wrong instead of pretend your never said it. >retards buying garbage because they fall for brand marketing doesn't benefit me unless its my soykaf they are buying If it's a choice between everyone being a retard except you. Or you simply don't understand economics. I know which option I bet on.

>>27060 >masses are right fool take

>>27061 >I am smarter than everyone who has ever lived Not a fool take?

>>27068 Maybe try not too think in binary extremes. You have various statistics to measure performance - academics , finance, fitness, ... and its not too hard to make it into top 30% which equals being above the majority. That doesn't guarantee competence but it correlates positively. That aside its an error to say the masses decide. Early adopters decide and they are not the unwashed plebs that follow trends. Its its own customer group with its on profile. I cant remember but there is a known critical number you have to reach with early adopters to make it a selfrunner where you know okay its gonna get popular and only then do the plebs hop on. The product cycle is deliver something that gets early adopters in. Gain popularity and then switch customers to the unwashed masses as there are more of them and their quality standards are lower. The early adopters will leave as you change to maximize profit but it doesn't matter because mass market profits are way larger.

>>27070 >Maybe try not too think in binary extremes. > you made siege mentality > accuse of false dilemma. nice try

>>27072 Now try to refute either point of fuarrrk off

>>27073 Refute what? Your faith?

>>27077 The way the industry works is simple reality documented in literature. Unable to argue against this you resort to name calling as the last defense for your ego. Its pathetic honestly.

>>27080 I have no idea what you're talking about. So are you sticking with "masses are not always right" as your only response to >>27060? The post covered more than just your chuunibyou.

>>27082 God, youre too incompetent to follow the comment chain.Its >27070 And whats relevant is the second part which addresses how things really work.

>>27084 >nobody can understand wtf I'm talking about >must be everyone else's fault I'll just repost it. >Ferrari is not just brand. It is a better car in pure stats. Replace Ferrari with whatever "pure brand" you want and answer the actual argument. >Who gives a soykaf about some objective truth? Are you the person who was defending labor theory or value? Yes or no. >retards buying garbage because they fall for brand marketing doesn't benefit me unless its my soykaf they are buying There are two answers: 1. people "fall" for brands that you don't because value is subjective and the brand means more to them than to you 2. people "fall" for brands that you don't because everyone is a retard except you

>>27085 Are you new? You just follow the link references to see the comment chain. Our chain started >>27061 and argued whether masses opinion matters or not. Your repost is irrelevant to the argument i made that early adopters shape the mass market and not the masses because they decide what products make it to mass market. Mass opinion literally doesn't matter. This is why masses are right is a fools take - They dont even decide, they just follow the people who decide.

>>27088 >Our chain started >>27061 So you jumped into some else's discussion, took a single line out of context and only want to talk about that single line now. All the while assuming everyone magically knows that you're a different anonymous poster. Go away retard.

>>27089 what i wrote destroys your entire construct. Imagine being too stupid to argue a point and still trying to wave your dick. Know your place imbecile and shut up

>>27090 Yes you completely destroyed your own strawman, good job.

>>27024 >unironically claiming that removing minimum wage will increase wages

>>27133 >tfw the classic "I'm not that guy, but" posting incoming. So, the wages don't "go up", but the wages tend to increase in value. In the same way of increasing minimum wage decreases the value. So, lets say you live in A-Land. In A-Land, minimum wage exists and it's $7.50/hr. $7.50/hr is worth about 3 loafs of bread in A-Land. Now let's say that you have been working at some corner store in A-Land for about 5 years and your promotions have gotten you up to making $10/hr. (Now, we can obviously assume that $10/hr is worth about 4 loafs of bread per hour) Now lets say that the minimum wage changed and it went up to $10/hr. Well, the cost of bread will naturally have to rise for this (Hah, get it? rise?) and so, a little bit of time passes and the bread makers noticed an increase in material and needed to increase the general cost of bread to help offset that balance and still make a profit, and now $10.00/hr is worth about 3 loafs of bread per hour. So, now everyone is miserable, but you've shrunk the "middle class" 4 loaf an hour breadwinners into the same group as the previous 3 loaf an hour breadwinners. Also, your last 5 years of hard work just disappeared, plus your previously saved money is now worth 3/4th of what it previously was. Now, unless you wrote me off as being a dick or whatever, you might be wondering "what in the fuarrrk does inflation have to do with REMOVING minimum wage?" -- The theory is that if you get rid of it, the market will sort itself back out, because the market always sorts itself back out. (Of course, this is under certain stages of capitalism, but we'll ignore this and pretend we aren't at "late stage capitalism" as people so lovingly call it.) So, the market has always sorted itself out and there is no reason, at the moment, to think that it wouldn't "this time". Do you understand? So, if we removed minimum wage, we would actually get rid of the floor. This means if you make $2.50/hr, you might be earning 25 loafs of bread per hour thanks to the low cost of paying for employees, but then you could also see it being 1 loaf of bread per hour because, hey, we know that people are willing to pay $2.50 for a loaf of bread right now. There will likely be an argument about how "greed knows no bounds, etc. etc." -- But you have to understand how economics and companies work. A company is going to try to maximuze profit, that doesn't mean you slap a $9999.99 price tag on a crumb of bread. It means you need to understand the culture, mindset, etc. -- There is a reason marketing and business are more of a psychology degree than a psychology degree is. Are you following so far? I hope so. What this comes out to is those who believe in getting rid of minimum wage think that if you get inflation from raising minimum wage, then if you do the opposite, get rid of minimum wage, the market will hit its normal setting and all will be well. I'd like to point out that this is an extremely simplified explaination of that point of view, and because few people give it much thought, people either agree or disagree, but have no genuine reasons to back up why or why not, outside of things like "But human greed" and "The invisible hand of the market". That being said, I am not arguing for or against it here. I hope that made sense, I wrote a lot more and realized some of it might have been inflamatory, overly verbose, and mostly not really needed for the conversation at hand.

>>27085 > There are two answers: > 1. people "fall" for brands that you don't because value is subjective and the brand means more to them than to you > 2. people "fall" for brands that you don't because everyone is a retard except you Not him, but the option 2 is correct. People who care about brands are low-IQ degenerates and don't deserve to live. Not even kidding. This is exactly why we need eugenics.

>>27136 >Well, the cost of bread will naturally have to rise for this It doesn't have to. This is a false assumption. For one example, rates of profit for the owner are allowed to fall and if you're a multiple-location company not paying what is considered a minimum livable wage to adults, I personally believe they deserve to fall. If we take that implicit assumption that the owners will not sacrifice profit to compensate workers when minimum wage is increased, I highly doubt they would have the generosity to sacrifice profits when the minimum wage is decreased. For the record, I don't think increasing the minimum wage is a proper solution, because like you said, it is possible for a greedy (or, in some cases, merely desperate) owner to put the entire cost onto the consumer, unless competition forces that number down. >Now lets say that the minimum wage changed and it went up to $10/hr. Hopefully, you're in an industry that had the brains to form a union and can negotiate a pay rise, or you have other co-workers who are willing to negotiate a pay rise. You received a pay rise. If it was actually from your work and not just compensating (or undercompensating) for the rate of inflation, then you should be able to negotiate a superior wage. >inflation Hopefully, you're in an industry that had the brains to form a union and can negotiate a pay rise, or you have other co-workers who are willing to negotiate a pay rise. If your wage stays the same as inflation rises, you are literally losing compensation. You are being paid less power, even if the arbitrary number of dollars stays the same. My wage increases annually relative to inflation, with pay rises and bonuses on top. It's actually pretty normal in my country, it's the case for all the wage jobs I've had. Minimum wage also increases here alongside inflation, because the cost of living increases.

>>27136 The problem that commies it's polylogists, therefore they will dismiss your argument as nonsense and then claim some ad personam and recognize it as a holy truth. >>27142 Instead, I suggest asking the commies what evidence they have. Because it's obvious they don't. Why? >>26788 > first there has to be someone who will appreciate it and pay for it From the beginning of the conversation, there is a conspiracy of silence on this subject. Why? Because it's an LTV hub. If this is true, LTV is BS.

>>27142 >rates of profit for the owner are allowed to fall The bean counters at the pension fund that owns the company will immediately pull funding and invest in Xinjang slave camps or Dioxin Producers Anonymous. The bread factory will burn to the ground.

>>27158 because the workers were drawn into the production machine? top kek

Only thing that matters is owning the money printer. fuarrrking around elsewhere is for suckers who remain under the printers influence regardless what they do. Imagine trying to fix a system wile ignoring the main valve.

There are people on a cyberpunk imageboard who are pro-capitalism. Where did we go wrong?

>>27215 They think that one day they'll be the corpo's on top.

>>27221 I've yet to understand the human behavior to brazenly insult someone they disagree with rather than confront their argument for which they disagree with counter arguments. No intelligent resolution can be made when this behavior occurs; there's no point.

>>27215 >There are people on a cyberpunk imageboard who are pro-capitalism. >Where did we go wrong? I like to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they're still quite young and haven't learned better. They likely haven't yet lost the luxury of being able to walk out on a bad boss and suffer nothing more serious than some mild parental complaints.

I hate capitalism. I hate its derivatives: marxism, lenonism, and communism. I don't give a soykaf about arguing about how "no but they aren't derivatives", you'll waste your time talking to me about it. Things with "Anarcho" are retarded. What material should I read? >inb4 3rd position I already like this. What other non-natsoc, non-fascist, non-3rd position literature exists? I guess basically, I want critiques of capitalism from a non-marxist point of view. Sage because it is loosely off-topic.

>>27224 >I guess basically, I want critiques of capitalism from a non-marxist point of view. You're kinda limiting yourself. There's not too many organized schools of thought on political economy that you haven't already dismissed out of hand. I suppose you could go back to pre-enlightenment systems like old-school monarchy, or maybe Chinese Legalism, or a plain old theocracy of one flavour or another. Or you could use some contemporary grifter economist (but I repeat myself) pushing their pet theory to sell their own books. In any event, good luck.

>>27225 >You're kinda limiting yourself You misunderstand, but I understand why. I'm just looking for something outside of what I'm already aware of. I've got dozens of books in everything I've mentioned. I just want different schools of thought. I don't care for modernity, I stay away from those morons because, as you mentioned, they just want to sell books. Hell, I stole a few of them and they usually just borrow concepts from Marx or Feder, that they didn't even really understand... I will look into what you've mentioned. One thing I do recall are the "counting sticks" from Britain back prior to the development of their central bank, but I hadn't really bothered looking into much around it. I wonder if that could be a good starting point. Cheers.

>>27227 because only two theories are the core: LTV and the Austrian school. In this thread, no one has proven that the LTV makes sense, so only capitalism remains.

>>27224 austrian vs keynesian economics discussion

>It is becoming increasingly clear that capitalism is an unsustainable system. Yeah, so lets replace it with something not only unstable but completely self-destructive that has failed over and over and over again so much so that the only nominally "socialist" countries that remain are in fact more market-based than even free market liberal democracies. Regardless, it is always hilarious how Marxists label themselves as scientific materialists but refuse to acknowledge that every single implementation of socialism has ended in failure and misery. What a pathetic thing to call oneself a "socialist".

Entitlement? How can you be entitled to someone else's money? - John F. Stossel

>>27415 I'm not defending communism, but capitalism is definitely not a good system. The ecosystem is going to collapse though, which can't be fixed by free market or pursuit of short-sighted profit. What capitalism does best is delaying the Malthusian catastrophe, but at least someone makes a profit, right? Self regulating mechanisms are prone to failure if they reach a stable but destructive point, and that's what economic growth is. The population is growing, people get richer, consumerism blooms and so does pollution, global warming, landfills and the list of species threatened with extinction. Just because things can be bought doesn't mean they should be. Just because things are profitable doesn't mean they're good. Education and good will lose when facing money. Oil companies spend big money on spreading propaganda and denying the climate change. Food companies spend big money on brainwashing people that their products are healthy and ethical. Capitalism is rotten because it is profit-focused, money shouldn't be the ultimate goal of humanity.

>>27417 It was >>26637 >Of course. Recently, there has been growing consumer awareness of killing animals and eating meat. If you want to change something, you have to educate people, then they will vote the most powerful tool in capitalism - the wallet.

>>27418 No it isn't. Protecting the environment doesn't provide any short-sighted profits while lying about the climate change does. Oil companies always will have more money than people who want to protect the environment, the wallet has already decided. Same goes for tobacco and medical businesses - people know that smoking is bad for them, but nothing changes. The reason for that is because both selling tobacco and healing people getting sick from smoking is profitable. Tobacco companies have more money to promote their garbage than foundations educating people will ever have. Free market by itself creates a niche for anti-educational activity, because it is profitable, unlike actually educating people. Capitalism doesn't support ethical things, just profitable things.

>>27419 >Capitalism doesn't support ethical things, just profitable things. morality is subjective so what the point

>>27420 NTA but it's not just that it doesn't support ethical things, it also disincentivizes constructive things. Profit is the outcome that is optimized for, which frequently encourages negative outcomes for the citizens overall. >morality is subjective so what the point Subjective or not, they often have real consequences. Subjective doesn't mean non-existent or futile. Taste is subjective, it doesn't mean tasteless food is desirable.

>>27421 > Subjective or not, they often have real consequences. Subjective doesn't mean non-existent or futile. Taste is subjective, it doesn't mean tasteless food is desirable. profit is also subjective and does not always have to be expressed in money (the so-called alternative cost) so i ask again - what the point? because for me there is no difference.

>>27422 You didn't address the argument you quoted whatsoever, so asking again is pointless until you do so.

>>27419 Capitalism is not a social system. This is what always pisses me off about fuarrrking Marxists. It is a vague economic mode of distribution that lacks strict ideological guidelines. You cannot blame slave-using diamond miners on capitalism or environment destroying petroleum corporations for that matter because it is the LAW allows them to do these things (which of course Marxists believe is inevitable because it is a religious doctrine). Unlike socialism, capitalism is PURELY an economic concept and not a social one. It requires us to deal with its consequences in our own ways, be it liberal democracy, Chinese authoritarianism, or whatever. Socialism conversely doesn’t support reality at all, just human misery every single time it has been implemented. Your hearts of iron role playing soykaf does not play out well in real life but leads always to nightmares.

>>27423 you argue about morality. Morality has no source, it appeals to itself, so it proves nothing. Morality is a combination of 4 cognitive errors: the naturalistic error, its subset, is-ought problem, the ontological argument and, of course, the moralistic error itself. All garbage, worthless cognitively. >>27424 quality post. In socialism, the problem is always the human factor.

>>27425 >morality has no source it has a source, its just encoding natural behaviour. You dont like dying so you say killing is wrong etc.

>>27428 >natural behaviour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature try again

>>27419 >Capitalism doesn't support ethical things, just profitable things. You are forgetting that profit comes from giving people what they want at a price they can afford. And if people truly want "ethical" things then they will pay for it (e.g. organic and vegan foods). >Free market by itself creates a niche for anti-educational activity, because it is profitable, unlike actually educating people. Imagine a world where you are responsible for educating yourself and you don't just turn on the TV and believe everything the government tells you.

>>27429 >he thinks thats an argument youre fullblown retard, avoiding dead is natural because everyone who doesnt is dead. Its mandatory

>>27430 false, people dont get what they want. They get tricked into thinking they buy what they want. I.E. food quality went down but artificial colors make it look like its good.

>>27433 If people are so easy to manipulate then why don't you just trick them into wanting communism?

>>27429 I don't know which philosopher told you that bullshit, but morals have their sources. They partially come from natural selection and evolution, for example: - killing your tribe members costs energy and decreases your chances of survival -> natural selection promotes a belief that killing members of your tribe is bad - eating other humans can give you diseases and decreases your chances of survival -> natural selection promotes a belief that eating people is bad - killing your children eliminates your genes from existence, including the genes coding killing your own children -> natural selection eliminates you and promotes those who don't kill their children To name just a few. Even the infamous group selection works if we speak about small populations. Things humans believe are good are basically things that help them (their genes) survive. Anyway, saying that morals have no source is utter bullshit.

>>27436 Are you sure? > Curiously, in his 1987 book O Socialismo Como Desafio Teológico (Socialism as a Theological Challenge), Boff argued that the highly oppressive former communist regimes in Eastern Europe, especially the former Soviet Union and Romania, “offer[ed] the best objective possibility of living more easily in the spirit of the Gospels and of observing the Commandments.”7 Returning from a visit to Romania and the former Soviet Union in 1987, just a few years before the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, Boff averred that these notorious regimes were, in his opinion, “highly ethical and … morally clean”, and that he had not noticed any restrictions in those countries on freedom of expression. Page, J.A., The Brazilians,: Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, p. 349, 1995. Return to text. you say morality comes from evolution. False, because evolution itself doesn't answer what is right and wrong. Praying mantis eat males, ants kill their queen etc... i think that did you mean The Golden Rule. And I think that you can not really fault anything here, you cannot logically undermine it :)

>>27438 >evolution itself doesn't answer what is right and wrong >>27436 >Things humans believe are good are basically things that help them (their genes) survive. I know english is your second language but you seem to be deliberately not reading the post you are responding to.

>>27438 >Are you sure? Yes, I'm sure. Evolution is the source of some but not all moral rules. I didn't say what it does is always good. >Page, J.A., The Brazilians,: Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, p. 349, 1995. I'm not discussing communism but capitalism here, for some reason this is the ancap general. >False, because evolution itself doesn't answer what is right and wrong. Evolution creates and sustains life. I hope we can at least agree life is good, if not you can buy a rope and end it. >Praying mantis eat males, ants kill their queen etc... That's a myth. Normally, in nature they don't kill males, but do that only if disturbed by people observing them, they eat the male's head to speed up the seed transfer. Although brutal, it is actually fulfilling the male's purpose. And as I already said earlier - evolution is a source of only some moral rules, not all. In the light of evolution killing animals and eating them is good because it provides resources for life and reproduction. The "good" and "bad" is subjective but it does exist.

>>27435 late reply but factually exactly what happened and is happening. False promises falling on fertile soil of the gullible pave the way to hell. And i dont mean to critize any specific system. This is a universal rule that leads to rot in any system. The whole discussion which system misses the issue that you cant make a good pie with rotten apples regardless of your approach.

>>27440 >Things humans believe are good are basically things that help them (their genes) survive. So why are there people who, for example, kill animals for fun? It's not the 19th century that you bring your whole life to survive, today there are more options. > Yes, I'm sure. Evolution is the source of some but not all moral rules. I didn't say what it does is always good. Like linux. > I'm not discussing communism but capitalism here, for some reason this is the ancap general. I's MORE COMMUNISM General... although I'm an ancap myself, I like to reveal the lack of logic and manipulation of communists. > Evolution creates and sustains life. I hope we can at least agree life is good, if not you can buy a rope and end it. It exists, but it is not known why. > And as I already said earlier - evolution is a source of only some moral rules, not all. to be honest the golden rule it's the only principle I recognize because it just comes from evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(evolution) but I don't call it morality because it doesn't make sense. Like faith - If something has been proven, it is no longer faith. > The "good" and "bad" is subjective but it does exist. of course. I doesn't deny existence, but I would like to point out that it is subjective, that is, irrelevant in the discussion.

>>27444 >The whole discussion which system misses the issue that you cant make a good pie with rotten apples regardless of your approach. What if playing architect with human beings and trying to "make a pie" is itself the problem? https://libertyexplained.com/book-recommendation-a-conflict-of-visions-ideological-origins-of-political-struggles/

>>27449 cant avoid it, any group will have some system of organization be it simply an accidental pattern outsiders observe as the established norm or some artificial construct imposed by a few on the many. The only choice is whether you take charge trying to be the controller or let go and get swept by the whims of others who make that effort. Chess has a nice term for this: compulsory move.

>>27450 Completely missed the point. All you had to do was read a 50 word summery.

>>27460 My point was that your linked consideration doesn't matter because its a unavoidable. Even if you know what you linked - you still are in compulsory move.

>>27465 What is unavoidable?

>>27469 What i already said in >>27450 That some kind of systematic hierarchy forms which forces you to either take charge or succumb to whatever someone else does. Its another example of prisoners dilemma but you're playing with millions of people in a big society which makes choosing collaboration practically impossible.

>>27477 Property doesn't create any power because no one manages it. The fact that commies uses a definitional retreat doesn't change anything, because it is fallacy. Either you do as agreed in the contract with someone or you are a fraud, end. Nobody in capitalism can impose anything on you.

>>27520 >reply doesn't address quoted post. >Sentence looks natural but makes no sense gpt3?

>>27528 Looks like it, lol. Especially "Property doesn't create any power because no one manages it".

>>27528 >reply doesn't address quoted post. Neither does >>27477 / >>27450

>>27528 >>27531 power, in the broadest sense - a social relationship between 2 individuals or 2 social groups, in which one of the parties can permanently and legitimately force the other party to act in a certain way and has means to control this behavior. when you sign the contract, the problem disappears. You are not forced.

>>27534 Never heard of people getting all land around them bought out and then told oh you wanna out? ya tresspassing, ya gonna pay up whatever we tell ya? Resource control which is what property is, is power in any system with limited resources.

>>27538 just as flat earth's combine knowledge with power https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/what-the-flat-earth-movement-tells-us/

>>27534 >>27539 I'm not sure what are you trying to prove here. "Property" means nothing without power. Just like you can "buy" a star, which means nothing if you don't have the resources to travel to the place. You can "own" land but if you have no resources to protect and utilize it, your "ownership" means nothing. Currently what gives a meaning to "property" is the state and the law, the state has the power to enforce things. Without the state, only the power you have can protect your property. Property is power.

>>27540 > I'm not sure what are you trying to prove here. The justification for the violence by the libtards (self-defense) >>26623 makes this argument basically insignificant. commies could not justify his own, so we are right. >Property is power. you didn't prove it. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/power > the possession of control or command over Either you use dictionary definitions or you will be err and will be definitional retreat fallacy.

>>27541 >The justification for the violence by the libtards (self-defense) >makes this argument basically insignificant. commies could not justify his own, so we are right. I'm not really a commie, I'm arguing because denying the fundamental rules of the world is too much for me to ignore. >Either you use dictionary definitions or you will be err and will be definitional retreat fallacy. Your post is one huge fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy 1. Dictionaries aren't objective but are subjective - words can have different meanings depending on who uses them. The author of dictionary.com doesn't have a monopoly over meanings. 2. Just because your arbitrary definition doesn't explain the relationship between power and property doesn't mean there's none. Property is an artificial construct, it doesn't exist in the natural world, only in people's mind. There are only two ways of enforcing property: 1. everyone respects you and doesn't try to take away what you have, 2. you have enough power to defend your property by force. That's it. I don't know what's so hard to understand about it. This isn't any ideology, this is how the world works regardless of the system.

>>27544 1. Well, dictionaries are for something. Otherwise, you would find the term means something different each time, depending on who you ask. Go ahead, ask what is the perspective by flatearther or what is theft according to communist. Or what is piracy according to IP. Oh, amazing! Suddenly they relativized reality. And so on with time, war is peace, freedom is slavery and piracy is theft 2. Yes. However, When commies don't have an argument to justify tgeir violence, no one will mind our (libtards) violence. Logic.

>>27540 >Without the state, only the power you have can protect your property. What is the difference between a group of people agreeing to observe property rights, and a group of people agreeing to observe property rights who also have a president?

>>27564 The state is no agreement. Its just the largest local gang telling you what to do and taking protection money aka taxes like any regular gang.

>>27565 As far as gangs go it's hardly the worst one though.

>>27567 Depends heavily on country and time. The two world wars were arguably worse than any small gang soykaf and a lot of the gang soykaf is rooted in gov using them as proxies i.e. drug trade to fund secret ops with untracable money.

>>27567 >As far as gangs go it's hardly the worst one though. Your fallacy is in assuming that it's the best option.

Max Stirner, in his wonderful book, the Unique and Its Property - he condemned communism as a sham and a failure for a very good reason: >" “Everything belongs to everyone!” This proposition comes from the same empty theory. To each belongs only what he is capable of. If I say: The world belongs to me, that too is actually empty talk, which has meaning only insofar as I respect no alien property. But to me belongs only as much as I am capable of, or have the capability for. " History has proven him right. Why was Stirner right? Because throughout history there has always been a movement of the lower classes to demand more. The current bourgeois in charge were the resentful of the aristocratic class that ruled them; they no longer wanted to take orders but give orders. They wanted to be capable of owning the world. Communists would become the new oppressors - as they did wherever they took power. The communists are no different than they people they resent. Now the worker rabble feels as if they're entitled to give orders to people because they overvalue themselves as their bourgeois predecessors who worked for them. Being a worker doesn't make you valuable to this world; that is simply you attaching protestant work ethic you've been indoctrinated with to romanticize a natural, biological process that is seen in all living organisms. Your own anthropocentric view of humanity blinds you to your own insignificance to the cosmological order. Your issues, and the issue of all communists, is that you simply crave more than you are capable of, and it is your failure to understand that. You must realize you are a selfish animal like any other conscious subject born to compete & take from this world. Instead of using your selfishness to your best advantage like any intelligent creature would; you wish to create a world where such selfishness can not exist. You fight against biological laws, such as our instincts, ones you are too eager to control, even though you are sorely incapable of doing so. Blame yourself for your problems, not others, and you will develop the strength to be someone in this world. Don't use your Marxist, dialectical sophistry to hide your true desires and passions. Scholasticism, book wisdom won't save you from the hand of force that grinds this world forward.

>>27591 >Don't use your Marxist, dialectical sophistry to hide your true desires and passions. Some of us leftists don't. We're quite plainspoken about our desire to see the ruling class and their bootlickers lined up against walls and shot.

>>27604 1. don't reply to baits 2. improve your English please

>>27607 >neurosuggesting jeff bezos, bill gates, elon musk, robert louis johnson, warren buffet, gautam adani, jack ma, ma huateng, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc don't get the bullet too

Incredible jannies, you deleted my little quip but left the youtube spammer up?

>>27603 Your mistake is assuming that you are in the middle and only people richer than you will be forced to redistribute their wealth. When it comes your turn to pay up you might suddenly have a different opinion.

>>27611 The real problem is rich leave the moment they try it and then they are the top to be robbed, The ones hit arent really rich, they fit under "enough to be robbed but too poor to move".

>>27615 >The real problem is rich leave the moment they try it That's right, the real problem with communism is that it wasn't authoritarian enough. Build the police state first and then eat the rich. It will definitely work this time.

>>27617 never implied that. Point was just that the ones screaming for it end up directly being the top that gets robbed dry because anyone they want to rob will leave on time before it happens. Their dreams of gibs dont even come to fruition before they themself land on the chopping block.

>>27623 >never implied that It's not the real problem then is it. If you could successfully eat the rich you're still fuarrrked because the loot will run out eventually and then a society full of only dregs can't sustain itself.

>>27615 >>27623 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking I wonder how much you can come up with fallacies before you give up.

>>27611 >socialism is the moral duty to redistribute wealth It's even worse than the "government does stuff" definition.

>>27630 The 1% that owns 50% of all wealth tries to convince me that me, the member the remaining 99%, that I can gain something by letting that 1% own even more? Sure, not a zero sum game, we can all be rich, it's not like the resources are running out.

>>27626 You wouldn't need longterm sustainability if you could manage robbing and exiting yourself before it collapses. Same soykaf as any speculative market. Theres also the currently successful hybrid model. Workers getting welfare to supplement low wages are essentially corps profiting of socialism marketing to fund their biz by the public through taxes.

>>27634 >we can all be rich You are rich relative to yourself living in Venezuela or in 1900. You need to compare yourself to yourself. Not compare yourself to Elon Musk. >it's not like the resources are running out >resources What are you going to do with a barrel of oil dude? If you give it to someone who knows how to make plastics and fuel with it then everyone has a better life. If you hide it in your backyard because muh resources then everyone is worse off, including yourself. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

>>27642 >op posted property >talks about oil at least address what you try to refute, land as he posted is the best example -limited space cant be fixed. The only way you get more space is someone else gets less. And even oil - why did oil fracking die in us? arabs dumped prices. Burgers got accidentally saved by a conflict from getting more small towns turned into poisonous fields like flint. Controlling the price has far wider reaches than just who gets to use it.

>>27645 >The only way you get more space is someone else gets less. Make more land in the sea. Build higher buildings. There's two ways why not even space is zero sum. >And even oil - why did oil fracking die in us? I don't know what this is supposed to mean. The point still stands. Hording resources is not wealth. Creating useful soykaf and trading for other people's useful soykaf is wealth and that's not a zero sum game.

>>27642 >You are rich relative to yourself living in Venezuela or in 1900. Good, we're still heading towards extinction. The entire planet is in ecological debt since 1970, we're using resources faster than they regenerate. >You need to compare yourself to yourself. Not compare yourself to Elon Musk. Why? >What are you going to do with a barrel of oil dude? You're using this ridiculous example to justify wasting resources? Does Elon know how to build rockets? Can he build a car himself? Can rich people build the things they profit from themselves? Or are they taking away the profit that their educated specialists and have enabled? Billionaires don't actually run the society, they only profit from it.

>>27648 >we're using resources faster than they regenerate So? When a resource becomes too scarce the price will get too high and everyone will switch to something else. The way we switched from whale oil to plant based oil in the 19th century when we ran out of whales. Again it's this static thinking that is holding you back. If we were dumb ass monkeys who can only eat bananas and we eat bananas faster than they grow then sure we would be in trouble. But humans have creativity and that's why assuming everything that exists now is all that will ever exist is dumb. Heard we are running out of lithium? Nope, some camel jockey just found a way to get it out of sea water. Pretending the world is static and there's only a limited amount of stuff is simply wrong. >Why? Because you can't change this variable. You will always be you. Comparing yourself to someone else is just a useless distraction. The only thing that matters is how you compare to another version of yourself. Capitalism has not failed because you don't have as much money as Elon Musk. Capitalism has succeeded because there is no non-Capitalist country you would have a better life in.

>>27651 Have you heard of the law of conservation of energy ? Or the law of conservation of matter ? Do you think this guy just made lithium from sea water and not that the sea water had it to begin with ? Do you believe in spontaneous generation ? The world is static and has everything we could ever possibly need.

>>27634 >>27645 >>27648 >Why? because >>26707 >>27657 >The world is static and has everything we could ever possibly need. Of course false >>26708 > On the market, everything costs how much, someone is willing to pay. If people value entertainment more than health, too bad. All you can do is educate yourself. >>26788 >first there has to be someone who will appreciate it and pay for it. My sewing machine is standing and making no money on its own, strange. you are simply jealous.

>>27651 >So? When a resource becomes too scarce the price will get too high and everyone will switch to something else. fuarrrk the price. The price going up won't suddenly restore the lost biodiversity and ecosystems. And switch to what? Another fossil fuel because it's cheaper? >If we were dumb ass monkeys We are, look around. >Nope, some camel jockey just found a way to get it out of sea water. Lithium is rare, mining it is also bad for the environment and there won't be enough for everybody. >>27659 >Yo, that rich man who owns half the planet and creates false inequalities to squeeze more work out of people is not your or the society's problem People parasitizing on the society are indeed the society's problem. >ur simply jealous. Yes, I'm simply jealous. Let's continue feeding the people who contribute little to the society while our environment degrades.

>>27659 >>27660 Also as for that jealous thing. Why do capitalists praise greed while calling the people who point out their greed "jealous"? Owning more that you can or want to utilize is just greed. I say that maybe we shouldn't feed the greedy that much? And I will always be jealous because I have better ideas how to utilize money in order to actually help people and the society while realizing my goals. The people who have the power to actually change things for better do little or do nothing and instead they pursuit vanity and memes.

>>27661 > And I will always be jealous because I have better ideas how to utilize money in order to actually help people and the society while realizing my goals. >>26708 > Try to convince him of your investments. Good luck.

>>26707 >>26708 >I don't understand the problem. There is no crime without a victim. If you were stupid enough to take drugs, then pay and cry. It's your life, if you've ruined it, that's your problem. I can tell you're American because American media does a really good job of portraying all systemic issues as problems on the part of individuals. Their left is really good at pretending it's the working class killing the turtles and not the 100 companies making up 70% of all carbon emissions worldwide. Yes, you took drugs that's your problem. But if there is a larger overwhelming trend of drug-related crimes and incarcerations it is really stupid to think there's no sociologically informed legislation that would bring some benefit to society. Large groups of people tend to act the on average about the same when under the same environmental constraints/etc. I know you think you are so much better, but drug addiction or some other soykafty things can happen to you too. Would you rather have assistance in that scenario or be left to die.

>>27663 > I know you think you are so much better, but drug addiction or some other soykafty things can happen to you too. Would you rather have assistance in that scenario or be left to die. first of all, I wouldn't force others to help me. I have nothing against voluntary help.

>>27664 capitalism only feeds people when it is profitable. it only does things to the benefit of society when those things are profitable. capitalist propaganda and social conditioning have made you so against someone possibly getting free rehab that you are completely against welfare programs that could possibly bring huge value to the lives of millions of people. less addicts in society isn't just good for addicts--it's good for everyone. president trump called bernie's 74 billion dollar plan for free college radical but increased our already ridiculous defense budget by 54 billion. there is no scarcity. only the illusion of scarcity. this illusion of scarcity is intentional, as it is key to upholding the status quo. the US, whose government is bought and paid for by corporations, has historically (and still does) take a violent approach to maintain the social hegemoney of capitalism. look no further than the guatemalan coup d'etat, the ludlow massacre, or the 60 year embargo on cuba to manufacture consent to "liberate" a population which does not want to be liberated. there's plenty more examples if you'd like them. i am surprised more lains are not leftist politically to be quite honest--as most are antiauthoritarian. if the constant propaganda shoved down our throats on a daily basis isn't enough proof that corporations are awful institutions, maybe you'll just have to watch it get worse. watch congress continue to sleep on data rights legislation, watch the prices of homes go up to where most people are just feudal serfs, watch the upper class continue to gain more and more wealth while you struggle to understand why you're still in poverty when you have a degree. 7 million americans are losing their homes because of the eviction moratorium ending, and the S&P 500 is at an all-time high. it's not going to be sudden, it's been a slow burn. does this look like prosperity to you?

>>27664 >first of all, I wouldn't force others to help me. I have nothing against voluntary help. Odd that you would rather perish than collaborate on a world where everyone has guaranteed access to necessary assistance. In any sort of consensus-based model of governance, some segment will be "forced" to play by the rules set by the larger group. To that end, if we must force individuals to do something (and we must), why not force them to do something that benefits both themselves and society at large? A truly stateless society, free of compulsion, is completely infeasible today given the state of geopolitics and the global level of technological advancement. It may be entertained as a long term end goal (as in Marxism and left-anarchism) but cannot be considered a viable option in the near term.

>>27665 antiauthority is anticommie /socialism. After all both systems constitute giving all control to gov. As for the current happening - money printing should be the focus. They printed more than 40% of all dollars ever available in just 2 years and distributed them among themselves.Everything else is peanuts in comparison.

Communism is a total failure. Communist theorists fail to take into account human nature. Communism is a diseased, wretched system for diseased, wretched people; a failed political theory by failures for failures. Free markets only become a problem when resources are scarce, and that's the situation we face now. Limitations are necessary to keep things in check. Effort should be made to fix the system, instead of changing it to something even more dysfunctional. Marx was a hack, and so is OP.

>>27668 > Free markets only become a problem when resources are scarce, and that's the situation we face now. We have never been post-scarcity, so it's effectively the same as saying they've always been a problem.

>>27669 Not to mention that scarcity can be fabricated (see digital music and games, "collectible" items).

>>27667 no, it's not. socialists/classical marxists are very antiauthoritarian. the problem is that libertarians like you think that you are antiauthoritarian because you hate governments, but fail to realize the primary reason governments often become corrupt in the first place: wealth. you are educated from birth to believe that socialism and democracy are mutually exclusive, and that couldn't be further from the truth. much of the argument for socialism is that it's inherently more democratic. rather than allowing a select few within the capitalist class to run the economy for their benefit, the working class collectively runs the economy by and for the people. strong underlying democratic structures (such as approval or ranked choice voting) and instant representative accountability make this possible. is it entirely unrealistic to think you've been fed a narrative by the world's largest superpower? you are much closer to being homeless than you are to being a billionaire. stop idolizing your oppressors. or keep waiting for your trickle down. the choice is yours.

>>27666 >In any sort of consensus-based model of governance, some segment will be "forced" to play by the rules set by the larger group. To that end, if we must force individuals to do something (and we must), why not force them to do something that benefits both themselves and society at large? 1. this is utilitarianism. What are you going to prove with utilitarianism? That one system is better or not? It makes no logical sense, utility is a personal preference in the absence of objective measurement. Why do you want to dismiss logic in the discussion? 2. You are going to steal something from me or do something against your will, I am going to do the same to you. Will you be happy with it? >>27671 > is it entirely unrealistic to think you've been fed a narrative by the world's largest superpower? you are much closer to being homeless than you are to being a billionaire. stop idolizing your oppressors. or keep waiting for your trickle down. the choice is yours. appeal to emotion fallacy.

>>27672 >appeal to emotion fallacy i don't think so. sounds like you're starting at an entirely emotional gut reaction and working backwards to justify your response, by finding some retarded reason to not confront or address the rest of what i said. pretty typical behavior of an indoctrinated know-it-all >You are going to steal something from me or do something against your will, I am going to do the same to you. Will you be happy with it? this doesn't even make any sense, tread-on-me retard. let me predict your response. >muh ad hominems! looks like i win yet another debate.

>>27673 thank you for confirming that you gave up the logic in the discussion. best regards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylogism

>>27671 You made several assumptions. The biggest discrepancy is thinking i treasure democracy. Elections almost perfectly correlate with budget spending on campaigns. Democracy is worthless without the majority being smart enough to vote for their interests. And thats not even touching legal vote rigging like gerrymandering or straight up fraud. Secondary it should be obvious that any form of socialism means more government control because the foundation of it take resources away from everyone and gov to redistribution. And given that all governments are corrupt sinkholes for money its always a bad idea. Forced participation in their systems means just forcefully getting scammed as the public never gets what it puts in back.

>>27667 Many of these real societies appear to contradict your assumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities#Active_societies

>>27709 Such projects happen solely on agreement with willful joining and can't be forced due to their small scale. This is what makes them nice - they are under pressure to provide value to retain members. Gov's dont operate like that. Most people are stuck in their place and stay even when it turns into absolute soykaf. So govs dont experience the same pressure to retain quality.

>>27674 Accusations of polylogism leveled at Marxist thought fundamentally misunderstand Marxism and material analysis. This is one of many reasons I can't stand von Mises. Logic would suggest that with identical inputs, the same function will return consistent, repeatable output. Polylogism, as von Mises originally outlined, attempts to explain different results generated by seemingly identical inputs by supposing that (at least as it pertains to "Marxism and other social philosophies") the function itself differs among certain groups or individuals, but this is (as you have noted) absurd. Marxism and materialism, as a science and a methodology, suggests that we commonly misunderstand and falsely correlate different inputs. It does not suggest that a different logic applies.

>>27711 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier's_reply Try harder

>>27710 one assertion i hear a lot from capitalists (similar to the one you've made here) is that socialist governments always devolve into totalitarian ones. i always find that the foundation for that argument is pretty weak. capitalists are usually quick to point out the risk of government totalitarianism, but an economic oligarchy is usually never on their radar at all. america's rich history of imperialism, exploitation of the working class, governmental corruption by private influences, and extreme reaction to any mention of socialism abroad is plenty enough for me to begin looking into it. in many ways, the conservative estimate of the death toll to america's imperialism far outweighs the (not conservative at all) death toll of the USSR. it's pretty clear from looking at currently available evidence that we've entered a late-stage capitalist downspiral. private influences are basically one with the government of the united states at this point. the vast majority of the media normals consume is owned by only a few large companies. it just wouldn't make sense to believe that they aren't intentionally manufacturing this large political divide for ulterior motives, especially now that wealth and power are so concentrated among very few individuals. >>27712 it doesn't really look like you're trying at all. anyone could scream courtier's reply when told that they misunderstand something fundamentally. without an argument as to why that assertion is incorrect, your wikipedia link means absolutely nothing. a fundamental misunderstanding is a valid critique, and the other lainon's reply seems much more thoughtful. kinda looks like you're just trying to fuarrrk with us because you have nothing better to do

>>27713 >>27710 went on a tangent here but i think you are downplaying the ability of democracy to provide pressure to retain quality. the US really isn't a shining example of strong democratic foundations, nor are most countries. besides, there's really no way to back up the argument that a socialist government will always become tyrannical. ironically a large amount of tyrannical governments in the world since the 60's were backed by the CIA during their rise to power. either for imperialist motives, or in order to stop socialism.

>>27713 >it doesn't really look like you're trying at all. anyone could scream courtier's reply when told that they misunderstand something fundamentally. without an argument as to why that assertion is incorrect, polylogism it literally reject logic and rejecting arguments only on the basis of ad personam. > Marxism and materialism, as a science and a methodology, suggests that we commonly misunderstand and falsely correlate different inputs. It does not suggest that a different logic applies. Flat-Earther say that too, they know the earth is flat but they don't know why. if you don't know that, then what the hell is the whole discussion?!

>>27715 i am clearly lost in your superior wisdom and intellect

>>27713 I see socialism as endgame capitalism corruption which makes it unnecessary to elaborate on capitalism. In a real market you have to pay the people for the labor they do for you. Claiming socialism you use other people to pay your workers bare minimum under the guise of "you gotta help your fellow man survive" and take all the profit with none of the cost. Increasing the burden furthermore ensures also that the masses have no capital themselves to pose a threat to you. This is factually already were we are with corps like walmart getting their workers subsidized by taxes. Low prices? You already paid for it through taxes even if you dont shop at them. Socialism&Capitalism are used in tandem to increase personal profits. Socialism to offload costs onto the public, capitalism to justify taking personal profit.

>>27719 oh no anon, i'm not a democratic socialist. by socialism, i mean classical marxism. calling myself a communist makes people who aren't in the know think i'm a tankie. And I agree with basically everything you said, as long as corporations exist they will do whatever they can to get ahead. It's pretty funny how people are so worried about a single mother committing food stamp fraud to pay rent, when Walmart can get away with paying their workers so little that they need food stamps in the first place, offloading the duties of supporting the people that work for them to everyone else essentially. This is, basically, the only kind of welfare we're bound to see. Actual sweeping systemic change is unlikely to happen, due to the current state of mass media, data collection, etc, etc. I'm sure you know all of that though. Welfare, as long as capitalism exists, will probably only serve to redistribute wealth among the working class. This helps ensure there are basic conditions for social reproduction, with large corporations needing to pay less for that to occur.

>>27717 if the communists are unable to prove their point, why do they argue. so many answers in the thread and no one could prove it right >>26618 marx it just taught you all propaganda, one question and the entire commie ideology hypothesis is break to smithereens >>26623 >>26760

>>27722 Why would a communist need to justify their violence in order to be a communist?

>>27723 aaa I understand, that is, you commit ad baculum. You lose.

>>27725 That doesn't answer the question plus you don't know what ad baculum means.

>>27727 are you sure >>26623

>>27714 >there's really no way to back up the argument that a socialist government will always become tyrannical Socialist systems always need to do a combination of A) violate property rights to "redistribute" wealth and/or suppress the free market, B) violate human rights to prevent productive citizens from escaping or refusing to work. Even though they start out with the best of intentions the only way to survive passed a certain point is to crank up the tyranny when humans have the audacity to act like humans instead of New Soviet Men.

>>27728 Ad baculum imply some kind of threat, e.g. "Believe that X is true, or else...". This post : >>27723 is a question, not a threat.

>>27733 you cannot prove using facts and logic. You have no argument to justify your violence - that is, you are a savage who practices argumentum ad baculum.

>>27735 My point is that wether or not a communist can justify their violence is irrelevant. Whether or not they can justify their beliefs in historical materialism or the LTV is what's interesting.

>>27736 > LTV nope >>26778

>>27736 >My point is that wether or not a communist can justify their violence is irrelevant. Whether or not they can justify their beliefs in historical materialism or the LTV is what's interesting. LTV is just an emotional argument. You do all the work but someone else gets some of the money? That's not "fair" right. Come with me and help me overthrow the unfair system. The mistake is assuming marxism has anything to do with economics. It's just a blueprint for controlling (some) people through their emotions.

>>27715 >Flat-Earther say that too, they know the earth is flat but they don't know why. if you don't know that, then what the hell is the whole discussion?! You're really going the extra mile to stir the soykaf here, aren't you? The premise of flat earth theory is that we have been lied to about the true nature of reality and logic itself, that established math and science are falsehoods, constructs meant to control an unquestioning populace. It suggests that both the facts and the logic are wrong. Materialst analysis does neither of those things. It is the study of cause and effect, and suggests that unexpected effects have a cause which is yet to be understood or identified. That's the whole idea. It's a science. You're either deliberately misconstruing or ignoring every point other Lains make in order to validate your increasingly invalid debate gotchas as if they were meaningful refutations, which they're not. >>27722 fuarrrk's sake. Since no other answer has satisfied, let me break it down for you. Capitalists justify their violence by saying it preserves a certain level of comfort or way of life, or that it creates a system in which economic prosperity is attainable, right? That's why wars are carried out, that's why resources are siphoned from non-wealthy nations to wealthy nations by industry, etc. Those things are all violence, frequently direct and bloody but also indirect and felt economically and socially by those affected by that violence. Communism itself presupposes no violence, either in its creation or functioning. It is simply a system, but a system cannot exist in a vacuum, birthed from nothing and subsisting without outside influence. Lenin, Mao, and many other prominent communist theorists and leaders have proposed and advocated violence in the creation and maintenance of a communist state for the simple reason that existing power structures will not relinquish their power willingly and all societal advancement has come at the cost of bloodshed. The justification is that it is impossible to replace any system with any other system, better, worse, or equal, without strife. Additional violence during the continued operation of the state (the suppression of dissent, the protection of the system from outside hostility, etc.) is considered justified as it typically represents a significant reduction of state violence in comparison to capitalist and fascist states, though this is obviously an undesirable element and modern theorists have attempted to find solutions.

>>27745 >The mistake is assuming marxism has anything to do with economics. It's just a blueprint for controlling (some) people through their emotions. Hate to get all Symphony of the Night on you here but perhaps the same could be said of all ideologies. Economics is not a logical game that can be reduced to a priori laws. It is a social science, not a mathematical discipline. Every element in any economy depends fully on the whims of humans, and humans are fundamentally and unalterably irrational. We do not have the cognitive or perceptural ability to understand the nature of anything we experience, and it is only through study - a posteriori - that we can begin to comprehend the world. The second you realize that all human thoughts and actions are biased at their most atomic level, the foundational ideas of Austrian school economics fall apart. It simply isn't compatible with reality. If you believe yourself to be perfectly rational, you fail to identify and acknowledge your biases and preconceptions, and are more irrational than someone who has greater self-reflection. You're a meat calculator with soup for circuits and a sky high error rate. The sooner you acknowledge that the sooner you can begin to improve. I don't believe dogmatically in the labor theory of value as originally defined by Marx, but I do acknowledge that labor has a transformative effect on the value of a good or service, which is the most important point Marx was making.

>>27747 > Capitalists justify their violence by saying it preserves a certain level of comfort or way of life, or that it creates a system in which economic prosperity is attainable, right? No. what you are talking about is utilitarianism, not capitalism real explain is here >>26623 >>27748 > The second you realize that all human thoughts and actions are biased at their most atomic level, the foundational ideas of Austrian school economics fall apart. It simply isn't compatible with reality. are subjective* Fixed > I don't believe dogmatically in the labor theory of value as originally defined by Marx, but I do acknowledge that labor has a transformative effect on the value of a good or service, which is the most important point Marx was making. False >>26788

>>27756 >utilitarianism, not capitalism Let me quote directly from your referenced post >>26623: >We have the right to defend ourselves because we have been attacked. So if you come for my property, I have every right to hurt you for the reasons mentioned above. and now, from my earlier post >>27747: >Capitalists justify their violence by saying it preserves a certain level of comfort or way of life These are the same point. "Preserving a certain level of comfort" includes (and in practice is virtually identical to) "upholding property rights". You have also completely failed to address any other form of violence perpetrated by capitalism, which I brought up repeatedly. The remainder of your post consists of flat and frankly nonsensical rejections of other points without any rebuttal or explanation. Your sewing machine is an example of the means of production, without labor to operate it and materials to supply it, it cannot generate value. This is completely in line with the most canonical interpretation of the labor theory of value and does nothing to disprove it, and again displays your lack of understanding of the difference between price and value. Value informs price but isn't the only factor. Just because no one will pay for something doesn't mean it is without value, and similarly just because something commands a high price doesn't mean it actually possesses value. Marx allows for and outlines the possibility of labor adding value to goods which command no price whatsoever. If it would make you feel better, you can imagine that there are two distinct value forms within the larger labor theory of value. The first being abstract or "total value", which is what Marx was mostly talking about and includes everything, even immaterial or unquantifiable elements of value, and then "real value" which is the subset of total value additions which directly affect price. Even when separated like this, the transformative effect of labor on real value is undeniable. Ten yards of fabric may cost $100, but those same ten yards sewn into several garments may sell for a thousand dollars or more. What explains that difference in price? Did the sewing machine independently add value? Can I make money by leaving fabric and a sewing machine in the same room and letting nature take its course? No, of course not. Someone must be there to operate the means of production, and that someone is labor. Labor, through the act of processing and refining the raw materials, created value. Labor.

Deleted thread Eh? This is why there is no discussion to be had. When we have our turn we will make no excuses for the terror. I have idiots enough references to look at and in thier dogma they refuse to look at it. For the hegielian Dogmatists look at Kyoto School. Enough said, enjoy your hugbox feds.

>>27757 > These are the same point. "Preserving a certain level of comfort" includes (and in practice is virtually identical to) "upholding property rights" you didn't prove it. The flat earthers also claims that knowledge is power. You just follow the same method, but instead of equating knowledge with power, you equate property with power. > You have also completely failed to address any other form of violence perpetrated by capitalism, which I brought up repeatedly. Because you have mistaken capitalism for utilitarianism. Someone's convenience doesn't matter in the least in the discussion. > Just because no one will pay for something doesn't mean it is without value, and similarly just because something commands a high price doesn't mean it actually possesses value. And that's enough to prove that LTV is bollocks. Everything costs as much as someone can pay for it. Until you don't understand it, we can't go any further.

>>27767 >And that's enough to prove that LTV is bollocks. Everything costs as much as someone can pay for it. There are months old replies stating that the LTV doesn't try to disprove supply and demand and that value and price aren't the same thing, yet you always conflate the two. Until you don't understand it, we can't go any further.

> There are months old replies stating that Are you sure >>27029 > Prove what, that value and price are different things? There's nothing to prove. curtain. >>27768 >the LTV doesn't try to disprove supply and demand and that value and price aren't the same thing, yet you always conflate the two. and neither could do it. Because nobody pays for the work itself, only for the results of this work.

>>27745 No, the LTV is a theory which attempt to explain economic phenomenons. You can be 100% in favor of capitalism and still think the LTV is a good theory.

>>27748 >Hate to get all Symphony of the Night on you here but perhaps the same could be said of all ideologies. Economics is supposed to be about understanding how to best acquire and deploy resources. Marxism isn't about that, Marxism is just crying about how unfair money is and we need a revolution because reasons. >Economics is not... I'm not convinced you've read any real economics, sorry. >labor has a transformative effect on the value of a good or service, which is the most important point Marx was making. No, the point Marx was making is that the proletariat do all the work and the bourgeoisie steal the profits therefor revolution now.

>>27772 Just no >>26778 > The laboratory theory of value is the central concept of Marxian economics and the basis of its analysis free market. If it were right, then much of his critique of capitalism would be right. But if there is false, in fact all of Marx's economic theory is wrong from the basics.

>>27777 >Just no You do realize the guy who came up with LTV was Adam Smith? >>27773 >Economics is supposed to be about understanding how to best acquire and deploy resources. Marxism isn't about that, Marxism is just crying about how unfair money is and we need a revolution because reasons. Why do people say this? when I was younger I though capital would be some exciting revolutionary pamphlet, yet it's literally a dry book about production, exchange of money, and bad working conditions at the time. Seriously, not joking for even a bit. >I'm not convinced you've read any real economics, sorry. Writing equation to say something doesn't make it true. You can have internally consistent fictional tale too, yet it doesn't make it relate to reality. If economics really had the predictive power of science, or was science, there wouldn't be so many schools of economics who all can't agree with each other, and economist could predict what will happen. It's not without a reason that Queen of England asked her economic advisors how they couldn't see 2008 coming.

>>27779 >You do realize the guy who came up with LTV was Adam Smith? And you realize everyone except Marx moved on from LTV in 1870. >If economics really had the predictive power of science, or was science, there wouldn't be so many schools of economics who all can't agree with each other Your mistake here is assuming that all economists have the same goals. >It's not without a reason that Queen of England asked her economic advisors how they couldn't see 2008 coming. Your mistake here is assuming that central bank economists care what's best for the queen or plebs like you.

>>27785 >And you realize everyone except Marx moved on from LTV in 1870. Didn't stop economics from being politics masquerading as science. And I'm not saying LTV is somehow the pure truth, because it has it's issues and I don't believe in it. I'm not even the guy you were originally writing with and I'm not a Marxist. But majority of people who criticize it are coming from a place of misunderstanding. No LTV economist believes you can swing your hands in the air for few hours and you should be paid, and no one believes that demand has no meaning. I can even quote Marx directly on the second point: >By the competition between buyers and sellers, by the relation of the demand to the supply, of the call to the offer. The competition by which the price of a commodity is determined is threefold. directly stolen from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm It's actually very easy to stress economic models to make them seem absurd. As a counter argument, I ask you what would be the value of any commodity if I didn't need to work and could just snap my fingers to get it, and if supply and demand truly dictate a value or something, shouldn't it disappear when supply and demand meet? You know, it seems like supply and demand rotate around some point, instead of being that point. But really, don't try to find some truth in economics. Just see all economics as snippets of some truths that frequently seems non compatible, yet all hold a truth nonetheless. Kinda like philosophy. It would be a misfortune to only know one school of philosophy and claim it's true. >Your mistake here is assuming that all economists have the same goals. Oh don't be so lazy. Every economist will tell you he is telling you the truth. Finding some true, objective economics is like finding true objective politics. You can't answer these question scientifically for the same reason you can't answer a question like if abortion is right scientifically. Unless you are an old school Marginalist, but then I can post low effort memes to make fun of you and state the fact that other Marginalist stopped thinking that happiness points of different people can be compared without friction. >Your mistake here is assuming that central bank economists care what's best for the queen or plebs like you. Eh, I don't think they really wanted something that made them lose quite a bit of money and caused lots of chaos for them. Certainly some profited, but you will always have people who profit from these things. That nothing happened to the big players is expected, since if you own so much you can have hundreds of companies fail and you barely feel it, you can sleep at night without worries.

>>27779 > You do realize the guy who came up with LTV was Adam Smith? who fuarrrking cares. Appeal to authority doesn't work here. > If economics really had the predictive power of science, or was science, there wouldn't be so many schools of economics who all can't agree with each other, and economist could predict what will happen. > But really, don't try to find some truth in economics. Just see all economics as snippets of some truths that frequently seems non compatible, yet all hold a truth nonetheless. Kinda like philosophy. meanwhile you have flat earthers, Hollow Earth, shrinking earth theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysical_global_cooling etc. and? does that mean the earth is not a ball? No, so don't discuss how many theories there are, just prove LTV is not bullshit.

>>27786 >majority of people who criticize it are coming from a place of misunderstanding t. the guy who has studied no economics. >I can even quote Marx directly on the second point: Price is not value. >Every economist will tell you he is telling you the truth. Doesn't change the fact that they have different goals. A member of the banking cartel who profits more from credit expansion obviously has a different school of thought to someone on the outside who profits more from hard money. Your assertion that economics is bullshit because two economists in completely different situations can't agree what is the best economic strategy is dumb. >It's actually very easy to stress economic models to make them seem absurd. Yes it is easy to make up strawmen when you don't know anything about the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect >Eh, I don't think they really wanted something that made them lose quite a bit of money Who is "they" and what do you think "money" is and how did "they" lose "money" exactly?

>>27787 >meanwhile you have flat earthers, Hollow Earth, shrinking earth theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysical_global_cooling etc. Yeah, but the issue is that it's a wholly different domain. You can prove that the earth can't be flat by just having gravity. Cause that means things will pull to each other and naturally form a sphere. You can fly up in a shuttle and see it's round, you can even look into the horizon and see that things disappear and bend the further you go. You can't really grasp value in that sort of way. Like I said before, if you try it's very easy to get to paradoxes or things that can't really be explained. It's like finding objective politics. How do you determine which politics is right? Or which philosophy is right? And economics, has much more to do with these things than it has with science, even if you add mathematics which by themselves can describe fully "fictional" scenarios the same way stories can, and be internally logically consistent. I am not saying everything is relative and there's no truth at all. Just that if you expect an objective account on something that can't meaningfully be mathematically modeled and is dependent on what we currently believe on it, you are in for a bad time. >>27788 >t. the guy who has studied no economics. This says everyone who has different political views than the ones you yourself have. Don't post such low effort replies here. >Price is not value. Well, can't I say the same in favor of LTV? It's a common argument there too that value and price are different, and that price is determined by other things than just the value. >Doesn't change the fact that they have different goals. It's more fundamental than that. for instance Keynesian school of thought, neoclassical and classical can't even agree on anything like a physicist do. You don't have physicist who believe gasses operate on completely different laws and derive them from different places like you have economist with human behavior. And all of them have usually the same goals when it comes to these points. >Yes it is easy to make up strawmen when you don't know anything about the subject. Uh, sir this isn't reddit. I'm tired of people like you, I wonder if you even are humans. Bots nowadays can construct a more elaborate sentences that this. Like, what did you even try to accomplish by saying this? This is outright a lazy and honestly a pretty dumb response. You could have said "no, u" and it would be at least funny. >Who is "they" and what do you think "money" is and how did "they" lose "money" exactly? Oh (((vey))) THE JUICE! Jokes aside, bankers and shareholders of giant mega corps. And money nowadays is nothing more than numbers on an excel sheet, and they lost it by their assets losing value, companies going bankrupt. It's not a difficult question. But I won't continue this conversation because if you had something worthwhile to say you would have said it before.

>>27792 > How do you determine which politics is right? The golden rule.

>>27792 >Don't post such low effort replies here. You think baselessly dismissing all economics without studying any of it is high effort? What a joke. >It's a common argument.. Why don't you address the actual argument instead of making up easy questions for yourself. >And all of them have usually the same goals when it comes to these points. Because when a bunch of scientists are bought off by oil companies and another group is bought off by globalists they totally agree on everything because muh objective science right. >I'm tired of people like you Stop pretending you know soykaf you don't then. >bankers and shareholders of giant mega corps. And money nowadays is nothing more than numbers on an excel sheet, and they lost it by their assets losing value lol what >economy collapses >plebs are forced to sell hard assets >print myself easy money to buy up assets at low prices >economy recovers >somehow I "lost" "money" Dude you're so clueless it's sad. >I won't continue this conversation Good idea. Go away and do some basic reading instead of dumping your ignorant theories and opinions.

>>27777 What do you mean "no"? The post you linked show a poor understanding of the LTV. It's not a moral theory about how much workers should get paid, or a psychological theory about what people value.

>>27800 >poor understanding of the LTV. so prove it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

Communism is soykaf. I ain’t gonna read the whole thread, but surely lil commies ITT got their urine portion enough. I just see the consequences of communism in my own country and I’m ready to shoot commies whenever they’d decide to arrange yet another coup, turning into a reign of nomenclature. *Russian libertarian right*

>>27799 >Because when a bunch of scientists are bought off by oil companies and another group is bought off by globalists they totally agree on everything because muh objective science right. This is a ridiculous example, the number of scientists "bought off" by oil companies is vanishingly small compared to the number of independent (or even globalist-funded) researchers with differing conclusions. The studies funded by oil companies are, for the most part, technically correct, which makes it harder to dismiss them out of hand, but they contort and misrepresent their data to support entirely unsubstantiated conclusions. Oil-funded studies are heavily magnified by lobbyists, politicians with financial interests, and oil-adjacent special interest groups, which is why they receive a disproportionate share of attention. Everyone performing scientific rigor and presenting substantiated conclusions does, in fact, agree - even to the point where oil-funded studies have been retracted. If anything, climate science is strongly anti-globalist given that the needed reforms would significantly reduce the amount of free trade between nations.

>>27804 Love it when you midwits blame communism for the consequences of the US installing anti-communists into positions of power in the USSR. When Russia was communist, they were the world's second most powerful and prosperous nation. Now, they're capitalist, and the whole place has gone to soykaf. Learn your own goddamn history.

>>27806 Your negro, Thomas Sowell, don't agree with that. >>26637

>>27806 Firstly you ought to check your privileges when in dialogue with russian. Secondly I surely know my place’s history better then any commie, who have watched some schizophrenic lefties on YouTube. I know about my family members who were imprisoned in ussr just cause neighbours wanted free square in communal flat so decided to slander on them. I know how violently the protests were supressed at factories and in concentration camps, btw it would be strange if the state treated it’s slaves in another way. I know how rural citizens suffered, as they didn’t even have IDs and could be punished and have their whole property expropriated due to having 2 cows instead of 1, that was called kolkhozes. fuarrrk, each day I see the Putin’s mug, hear his moans about the lost state of the tastiest ice cream. Surprisingly, he is an ex-KGB officer, and warmly keeps his CPSU party card. I can continue endlessly but already tired of commies on Russian boards, so that’s just the small bunch of extra reasons, why I hate commies, even regardless of my libertarian view. Also, the 00’s were the richest period of time in my country, which happened thanks to market reforms by the liberal prime minister.

"Capable people of terra. For too long we have been divided by petty tribalism. Too long have we been blinded to true purpose. Here at disarm we wish to create a nation of thinkers, men of virtue, and humanities finest. Strength in numbers is the way, all for all. Let us colonise the stars, slay the xenos, manifest destiny. A forever expanding ethnostate the link gg/btFRxgQD

>>27805 >This is a ridiculous example You didn't disprove it though. You acknowledge that even in the hard sciences, experts with conflicting motivations disagree with each other. The guys funded by Exxon obviously don't agree with the guys funded by Soros. So why do you expect economics to be any purer. >>27806 >Learn your own goddamn history. What history book told you the soviet union collapsed because they were too rich lol.

>>27811 Eh, I somehow doubt that someone who would at least need to be 30+ now to be on this site and give a good account of how life was back then. Most of people who lived in these times just browse boomerbook if even that. I have family who lived through it too, and while I certainly understand anti-communism and even agree with it, it's not because you got imprisoned or had restricted free speech. Because back in those days these thing only were an issue for politicians since there were no electronic devices to spy on regular citizens on large scale and even computers powerful enough to process what was being spied. If you complained about boring work, long commute hours and soykafty food I would have believed you. Oppressive and hard work is a meme. If that was the case the state wouldn't complain about there barely any work being done. Also anyone who thinks somehow post 90s eastern europe was the best time ever for it, while essentially it was mafia controlled nations where 80% of women stood on streets in miniskirts in hopes of blowing someone for a loaf of bread is bullshitting.

>>27826 Not him but same story. What you dont get is that every slav got told by parents&grandparents how family survived ussr. And the productivity was down despite hard labor because of retarded leaders. You didnt get the job for being good, you got it for being a party member. The end result was party idiots telling experts how to do it wrong and the experts had to follow to avoid gulag.

>>27827 I come from eastern europe and no one seriously talks about surviving the communist times. There's talk about it being boring, products being trash, and it being mismanaged, but it wasn't a warzone. And certainly no one talks about these times as being worse compared to the disaster that were the 90s, which if you look at the economy it pretty much was dead and run by criminals more or less in every nation that didn't get into a war. You would have a point if what happened was that the totalitarian states went away like they pretend happened in the west, but what it essentially happened is the same people were in charge, disappearance of social security for lot of people with job losses, and tons of drugs and prostitution on the street. The only people who really don't see the past 4 decades as a disaster are those who migrated away.

>>27828 >ww2 >not a warzone wut? Maybe youre from the far east. We had still a tank standing left from the war in the middle of the city and father got his ass beat by granddad cause they found ammo as kids and played with it. Also said criminals were already present in ussr. They weren't rags to riches stories but already established forces fighting for the unoccupied throne.

>>27818 >What history book told you the soviet union collapsed because they were too rich lol Your reading comprehension is terrible. I clearly said they fell because of US interference. This is why the US keeps whipping itself into frenzies over "Russian election meddling", they know that's how they took down the USSR and are terrified of having the same thing happen to them.

>>27839 >Your reading comprehension is terrible. I clearly said they fell because of US interference. What you said was under communism the USSR was the second most powerful and prosperous nation and then for no reason at all they switched to capitalism and now they're poor.

>>27839 The USSR wasn't a democracy. As the old joke goes, even if there was an opposition party it would still be a one party state because everyone would just vote for the opposition. These guys had to build a fuarrrking wall with barbed wire and machine guns to stop their own fuarrrking citizens running away. Pretending that some external "interference" was the problem is laughable.

i am starting to learn about communism, so expect some dumb questions. >But, the costs of production of labor consist of precisely the quantity of means of subsistence necessary to enable the worker to continue working, and to prevent the working class from dying out. The worker will therefore get no more for his labor than is necessary for this purpose; the price of labor, or the wage, will, in other words, be the lowest, the minimum, required for the maintenance of life. i do not get this part. i know there are jobs with low wages, but it is really like that? at least in my country some people get wage increases. yeah, the wagie can simply say "increase my wage or i am out" and the rule that says the worker only gets the necessary to work still applies, but the boss can also say "so you are out" and hire another wagie.

It genuinely blows my mind that there are people that continue to entertain communism... some bubble, unaware of both history and the human condition, heartlessness, thirst for power. How can you even entertain such things? Do you see? Do you believe you could implement a communist system without some form of power centralization and the retardedness that'll ensue? Did you even look at the communist genocides or famine? How does this thread have 300 replies? Why? HAVE YOU NEVER OBSERVED ANY HUMAN BEING IN POWER??? WHY???

>>28524 A lot are disillusioned with the obviously barely functioning current systems but also aren't aware of many alternatives. You seem somewhat informed, so perhaps you could drop a few useful pointers for the thread.

1)can one save money in a communism? 2)suppose i have 50 and you have 50. i buy something from you, so now i have 25 and you have 75. and then you buy something from someone that have 100 - because his products cost more -, so now you have 25 and he has 150. how we are supposed to have the same amount of money? yeah, i know the money circulates, but how we both gain or lose money so that we all have 50?

>>28529 2. Private trade/barter is derezzed under communism to avoid that problem. Otherwise, exactly, you'll get capital accumulation.

>>28524 Yeah I still entertain communism because i see that capitalism only brought poverty to my country. Judging capitalism just by looking at the privileged minority of the first world that benefited from years and years of colonialism is false. If you want to do a fair comparison of both systems you are going to look at Africa and South Africa. Socialist states surpassed their equally developed counterparts in almost all quality of life pointers. 10 million people every year starve in this planet under capitalist countries another 10 million die to preventable diseases or not having access to cleaning water again under capitalist countries. To me that is a way bigger crime to me than the crimes committed or alleged crimes by socialist states. >HAVE YOU NEVER OBSERVED ANY HUMAN BEING IN POWER??? WHY??? I suggest you read up on the political structures of previous socialist states. They have far more democratic participation than "man with big hat rules"

>>28531 i am talking about buying something like we do everyday. i remember hearing that in oriental germany someone bought some tissues and made a baloon. how this was possible without capital acumulation?