/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20470364]

Why do people still take Marx's works seriously in academia and such? I understand some random teenager taking up the concepts from them, but he's practically worshipped even among university professors despite his ideology proving to be such a disastrous failure in the last century. I mean this is why conservatives are so hesitant to send their kids to university, rightfully so honestly. It shows a complete lack of sense, academia is constantly criticized for being detached from the real world and their insistence on pushing marxist doctrine really embodies that.

[Anonymous No.20470428]

>>20470364
>Why do people still take Hayek's works seriously in academia and such? I understand some random teenager taking up the concepts from them, but he's practically worshipped even among bitcooners despite his ideology proving to be such a disastrous failure in the last century.

[Anonymous No.20470434]

>>20470428
What's your point?

[Anonymous No.20470483]

>>20470434
Marxian economics is still relevant. (There’s updates)
Austrian school is dead dead dead
But are you a Chicago school guy? Aren’t they also MMT?

[Anonymous No.20470688]

>>20470364
>His ideology

Stopped reading there. Go back to /tv/ tourist

[Anonymous No.20470700]

>>20470364
Are you talking about the american revolution?

[Anonymous No.20470702]

>>20470364
>this is why conservatives are so hesitant to send their kids to university
The aren't.

[Anonymous No.20470707]

>>20470364
>this is why conservatives are so hesitant to send their kids to university
They aren't.

[Anonymous No.20470710]

>>20470483
I'm more of a German historical school kind of guy

[Anonymous No.20470751]

>>20470364
Conservatives: Tax cuts; Supply-Side (trickle-down) economics based on imaginary Laffer Curve
Marxists: Progressive taxation, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, all of which have been proven to reduce inequality.

Conservatives: Rising tide raises all boats, good business owners motivated to pay employees fairly because of good PR; dominos heckin pizza pothole!
Marxists: Capitalists are in inherent tension with working class; inherent tendency of rate of profit to fall means that even the kindest boss will have to make cutbacks; Dominos spent 100x on marketing than filling up potholes

Conservatives: Marxists are detatched from the real world
Marxist:
Reality: A

[Anonymous No.20470770]

>>20470751
What's the point.

[Anonymous No.20470771]

>>20470751
>Progressive taxation, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, all of which have been proven to reduce inequality.
Inequality is at its highest point now after all of these things have been implemented. The correlation is literally negative.

[Anonymous No.20470793]

>>20470770
Conservatives are detatched from reality, and Marxist claims have been proven, contrary to what OP claims

[Anonymous No.20470799]

>>20470751
>Marxists: Progressive taxation, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax

I think you have Marxists confused with liberals or social democrats.

[Anonymous No.20470800]

>>20470771
That's hilarious. Find me 1(one) metric that shows that inequality is higher now than it was in the time of Marx

[Anonymous No.20470804]

>>20470364
>reddit file name
huh
Old thing is old thing okay.

[Anonymous No.20470813]

>>20470799
The ultimate aim is the Communist state, but Marx and Engels called for these taxes to reduce inequality.
https://mronline.org/2019/09/03/marx-on-taxation/

[Anonymous No.20470822]

>>20470800
The point is more that the implementation of these "progressive" policies correlate negatively with income equality. Marx's time in particular is not relevant, Piketty's chart only goes back to 1910.

[Anonymous No.20470852]

>>20470822
On the contrary, I would say that Marx's time is the most relevant, because he was writing in the midst of the Industrial Revolution, when the power was changed from the nobility to the capitalists.

As for your chart though, it's to my knowledge that progressive taxation and policies came to a height with "The New Deal" by F.D.R., and then was progressively curbstomped by Regan, then Bush and Trump(to a lesser extent), which aligns with what I said earlier. If you have an alternative narrative, I would be interested to know.

[Anonymous No.20470859]

>>20470364
>Why do people still take Marx's works seriously in academia and such?
Because academia is a joke. Once you understand this at a fundamental level, you'd understand why.
The labels such as "expert" or other such words that presuppose some authority in a topic are nothing but the reification of knowledge and data into a person.

[Anonymous No.20470866]

>>20470364
Also, most people have no idea about the basics of economics. Marx offers a lot of theories and ways to systemize human society that appeals to people who think in a similar manner in their fields.

[Anonymous No.20470875]

>>20470800
>>20470822

[Anonymous No.20470889]

>>20470483
>(There’s updates)
You mean resorting to mental gymnastics when capitalism doesn't fail?
They did it for 100 years or so.

[Anonymous No.20470891]

>>20470751
I would be fine with Marx if he just embraced moral objectivity and God, but the communist cannot help himself

[Anonymous No.20470945]

>>20470875
That's true, but we're talking about before the implementation of progressive taxes vs after.
You cannot compare the world as a whole, we need to look at specific examples to find out if inequality has increased before vs after these taxes.
The world as a whole has many disparate policies, it's not as if Somalia's economic policies are the same as of Norway.
>>20470891
Why?

[Anonymous No.20471034]

>>20470364
Have you read Marx? Can you explain your problem with Marx qua Marx?

[Anonymous No.20471054]

>>20470483
>Austrian school is dead dead dead
mises.org

[Anonymous No.20471056]

>>20470364
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>NOT THE HECKIN REVOLUTION
>YOU CANT JUST RAISE PEOPLE TO HATE THE BOURGOEISE IN MATERIAL CONDITIONS ENCOURAGING THEIR ENSLAVEMENT .... THAT'S HECKIN GOD DAMNED WRONG
The real NPC is the guy who made this meme.
>>20470891
The idea of a God and each individual having an immortal soul contradicts every single one of Marx's tenants. Class conflict and revolution can't ensue if you actually think these idiots are god's heckin precious and your brother and sister, which is why the fundamental message of religion is to be nice bro. Marx wasn't a moralfag. He said both classes acted in self interest.

[Anonymous No.20471071]

>>20470483
>Marxian economics is still relevant.
No.

[Anonymous No.20471085]

>>20471056
>marx wasn't a moralfag
>RAISE PEOPLE TO HATE THE BOURGOEISE IN MATERIAL CONDITIONS ENCOURAGING THEIR ENSLAVEMENT
It's pottery.

[Anonymous No.20471086]

>>20470889
It continually fails.

>>20471071
You wish.

[Anonymous No.20471092]

>>20471085
All moralists say hatred bad, Only a moralfag would have a problem with fomenting it.

[Anonymous No.20471101]

>>20471034
>Can you explain your problem with Marx qua Marx?
Not him, but:

Marx’s Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right:
"In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates <...> a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society <...> which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat."

And compare this with pic related. Marx's view is essentially the medieval view of removing all the differences to merge with God (actualizing the Absolute).
Except that Marx is not evoking God as a premise and mumbles instead 'just do it, motherfucker! It will be great! Communism, yeah!'

As such, it makes marxism a cargo cult of a death cult. It's like believing, that if you make people suffer from aphasia, they'll automatically switch to 'neuralink' thought transfer, instead of civilizational collapse.

[Anonymous No.20471104]

>>20471086
Yes, and it continually rises again.
>>20471092
No, all moralists say hatred bad if you don't hate X.

[Anonymous No.20471106]

>>20471092
Injustice against the masses is bad.
I’m not a Marxist, but the man had a passion to fix what was most wrong in the world. Atheistic higher morality.

[Anonymous No.20471119]

>>20471106
>Injustice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_fallacy

>Injustice against the masses is bad.
Define "justice".
Define "bad".

>Atheistic higher morality.
"The entire economy of my soul and the balance effected by 'misfortune', the breaking open of new springs and needs, the healing of old wounds, the shedding of entire periods of the past - all such things that can be involved in misfortune do not concern the dear compassionate one: they want to *help* and have no thought that there is a personal necessity of misfortune; that terrors, deprivations, impoverishments, midnights, adventures, risks, and blunders are as necessary for me and you as their opposites; indeed, to express myself mystically, that the path to one's own heaven always leads through the voluptuousness of one's own hell. No, they know nothing of that: the 'religion of compassion' (or 'the heart') commands them to help, and they believe they have helped hest when they have helped most quickly! Should you adherents to this religion really have the same attitude towards yourselves that you have towards your f ellow men; should you refuse to let your suffering lie on you even for an hour and instead constantly prevent all possible misfortune ahead of time; should you experience suffering and displeasure as evil, hateful, deserving of annihilation, as a def ect of existence, then you have besides your religion of pity also another religion in your hearts; and the latter is perhaps the mother of the former - the religion *of snug cosiness*"
(Nietzsche, Gay Science, #338)

[Anonymous No.20471124]

>>20470751
The reason Marx is so demonized is because his observations were correct and the policies that follow from those observations legitimately threaten those who hold large amounts of capital

[Anonymous No.20471139]

>>20471106
>Injustice
Spook. Doesn't exist. There is nothing wrong with slavery. There is nothing wrong with slave revolts. It's a simple cause and effect.

[Anonymous No.20471140]

>>20471124
>criticism is just rich people scared of the truth
Sure.

[Anonymous No.20471145]

>>20471104
That’s the sign of a healthy zombie corpse that kills millions and takes us right up to the brink of extinction. Way to go state-capitalism.

[Anonymous No.20471146]

>>20470751
>Conservatives: Tax cuts
>Marxists: Progressive taxation, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax
Distributists: forbid usury, return to medieval guilds

[Anonymous No.20471147]

>>20471124
This but unions are cringe and legitimize the exploitation of worker and prevent the strife that otherwise would cause the conditions for revolutions.

[Anonymous No.20471149]

>>20471119
>Marx BAD
>Wiki argument
>wanky philosophy blockers
If you’re honestly lost as to what’s at stake here, I’m glad you don’t get women and think of suicide often, you empty husk.

[Anonymous No.20471153]

>>20471139
Shoot yourself, robot.

[Anonymous No.20471154]

>>20471140
>>criticism is just rich people scared of the truth

[Anonymous No.20471156]

>>20471124
>his observations were correct
His social/political observations were correct.
His economy theory completely sucks, though.

[Anonymous No.20471158]

>>20471139
>There is nothing wrong with slavery. There is nothing wrong with slave revolts
Value is a spook, exploitation is a spook...

[Anonymous No.20471159]

>>20470751
>Progressive taxation, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, all of which have been proven to reduce inequality.
That's not Marxist. A Marxist wants a Marxist-Leninist one party state. You are talking about liberal or socdem ideas there.

[Anonymous No.20471165]

>>20470751
>Marxists: Progressive taxation, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax
This has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism and all of these strategies are copes initiated by people who are successful to begin with so the state has more power to put down the proles and it also places barriers of entry between the classes. Marx suggested none of these. Marx's solution was simple: revolution and that the workers seize the means of production and force people like you to dig holes. Not vote for copes.
>Conservatives: Tax cuts
Advocacy for tax cuts does not contradict Marxism. If anything, its self-interested. I am a Marxist and I voted for trump twice precisely for tax cuts materially benefited me.

[Anonymous No.20471166]

For the tards using their rudimentary thoughts on Stirner to make their stupid points.

[Anonymous No.20471167]

>>20471154
Good thing it's not a religion, comrade.

[Anonymous No.20471169]

>>20470364

People are naturally supportive of socialism in theory, though seldom in practice when they actually have to live with the full consequences. Marx merely justifies said innate beliefs as both inevitable and scientific.

I'm speaking of course of real socialism, though. Expensive social welfare programs aren't socialism. Nor is universal healthcare. Socialism is the attempt to, or the successful reaching of, the abolition of private property. But since people are acquisitive by nature, socialist societies must continuously victimize wrongthinkers with every passing generation. And since free-market prices provides information to people via the natural rise and fall of prices in goods that can never exist under actual socialism, socialist societies will always be poorer, backwarder, and more corrupt than any equivalent capitalist society every time the leaders of said society actually try to impliment it.

The only thing that saves every socialist experiment from being as disastrous as the USSR, Vietnam, the PRC, or Venezuela is that the majority of socialists aren't actually fanatical enough to attempt to impliment real socialism. Indeed, three of those four countries mostly gave up on socialism eventually, at least until recently. But notice how socialists are never slavishly worshipful of the likes of Khrushchev, Deng Xiaoping, nor Nguyen Van Linh when they manage to improve things whenever they move away from real socialism. It's only ever tyrants and fanatics like Stalin, Mao, and Ho who become idols. And whenever the consequences of their failures becone too disastrous to justify, the excuse offered every time is always "they were never really socialist"; a phrase mysteriously absent during the honeymoon period, except from certain anarchists, whom nobody listens to anyway, including Marx himself, who had them expelled from the International when they pointed out it'd be impossible to impliment his vision without tyrrany and massacre.

Read Kristian Niemietz for a better look at this phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.20471171]

>>20471167
All those who gain power are afraid to lose it. Same with those who accumulate capital

[Anonymous No.20471173]

>>20471158
>Value is a spook, exploitation is a spook...
Yes.

https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/09/04/stocks-are-up-wages-are-down-what-does-it-mean/
"The capitalization formula is simply a ritual — an article of faith.
This arbitrariness doesn’t lessen the importance of capitalization. Far from it. Rituals are always arbitrary. But their effects are always real. Just ask Bob, who’s about to be ritually sacrificed to appease the god of rain. The ritual is arbitrary — founded on a worldview that is false. Killing Bob won’t bring rain. But the rulers believe it will. And so Bob dies. The ritual is arbitrary. The effects are real."

"Now here’s the uncomfortable truth. Capital is the same as mana — it’s a euphemism for power. <...>
The similarities between mana and capital are unsettling. But there is an important difference between the two ideologies. Hawaiian elites didn’t quantify their power. But modern elites do. Capitalists use the ritual of capitalization to give their power a number. This ritual, Nitzan and Bichler observe, does something unique. It makes capitalism the first social order that is *quantitative*."

[Anonymous No.20471182]

>>20471167
It is in a sense

[Anonymous No.20471185]

>>20471173
>production of goods and services is like some faggot being sacrificed for the god of rain

[Anonymous No.20471193]

>>20471185
Yes. Welcome to the concept of 'social hologram'.

[Anonymous No.20471195]

>>20471171
Is there really a man out there who's not afraid of losing everything?

[Anonymous No.20471220]

>>20471193
Sacrificing some faggot for the god of rain is not the same thing as signing a contract because jobs are available and you need to survive.

I have no idea what's the point of that wall of text you posted.

[Anonymous No.20471234]

>>20471220
>because jobs are available and you need to survive.
Gods commandments are available too, and you do need rain for crops to grow.

>I have no idea what's the point of that wall of text you posted.
Sorry, I mistook you for someone having a 3-digit IQ number.

Let me paraphrase it for imbeciles: things such as "production", "value", etc. would have required a shitton of unmeasurable factors to measure. As such, Marxian framework is false.

[Anonymous No.20471273]

>>20470428
fpbp

>>20470364
> I understand some random teenager taking up the concepts from them, but he's practically worshipped even among university professors despite his ideology proving to be such a disastrous failure in the last century
There can be no ideology that correctly describes the real world, as ideology is product of material conditions that is used as a product to control social processes to a degree. "Being correct" is nowhere to be found in an ideology's recipe.
And to accept this is to acknowledge Marx. Literally everything else is believing that (((your brand))) of kool-aid is the transcendent truth.

Hence academia standing by Marx, because every time when you instead of stating "market does like this and this" you instead take a step back and start studying how we come to state such things, you are using Marx or trying to reinvent Marx. And reinventing Marx is really damn pathetic.

> I mean this is why conservatives are so hesitant to send their kids to university, rightfully so honestly.
They are not.

[Anonymous No.20471289]

>>20470428
fpbp

>>20470364 (OP)
> I understand some random teenager taking up the concepts from them, but he's practically worshipped even among university professors despite his ideology proving to be such a disastrous failure in the last century
There can be no ideology that correctly describes the real world, as ideology is product of material conditions that is used as a product to control social processes to a degree. "Being correct" is nowhere to be found in an ideology's recipe.
And to accept this is to acknowledge Marx. Literally everything else is believing that (((your brand))) of kool-aid is the transcendent truth.

Hence academia standing by Marx, because every time when instead of stating "market does like this and this" you take a step back and start studying how we come to state such things, you are using Marx or trying to reinvent Marx. And reinventing Marx is really damn pathetic.

Many Marxian authors have different opinions about violent revolutions, formation theory of history and Communism, but what ties Engles, Fromm, Deleuze, Lenin, Foucalt, Marcuse, Sartre and Ligotti is that they all recognize that even they themselves are not entities of pure metaphysical reason interacting with physical matter of such entities as "value" or "class", that just having a lot of introspection is not enough to get out of Plato's cave, and that understanding how exactly are we choose to thing what we are programmed to believe is necessary to be anything more than NPCs furnishing the cave for someone else's benefit.

> I mean this is why conservatives are so hesitant to send their kids to university, rightfully so honestly.
They are not.

[Anonymous No.20471314]

>>20471289
>And to accept this is to acknowledge Marx.
>understanding how exactly are we choose to thing what we are programmed to believe is necessary to be anything more than NPCs furnishing the cave for someone else's benefit.

'The Psychology of Marxian Socialism' (1984)

"Among the great thinkers and the ardent enthusiasts who were pioneers in the field of socialist theory, hardly one proletarian can be named"
"Beyond dispute, socialism, though in course of time it has become the objective of the labour movement and supplies that movement with a program, is, historically considered, not so much a doctrine of the proletariat as a doctrine *for* the proletariat. Were we to accept the misleading terminology of Marxism, which tells us that every specific kind of social ideology is the expression of the outlook of some particular class, we should be compelled to describe socialism, including Marxism, as a bourgeois growth."
"In reality, the undoubted fact that the originators of socialist doctrines have almost invariably been bourgeois intellectuals, shows that psychological motives are at work, motives which have nothing whatever to do with class interests."

"For Marx, knowledge, awareness, was the primary determinant, the class will was the outcome of class consciousness. We are confronted with a kind of mystical revelation: a revolutionary necessity hovers in the air, as a scientifically demonstrated principle inherent in the developmental laws of the capitalist method of production; the workers, the "midwives" of the revolution, need only recognise the truth of this principle, and they will take the steps requisite to bring about the birth. They are the instruments of a dialectic which already lives as a law in a supraterrestrial sphere before it descends to earth and enters the minds of the human beings whom knowledge will stimulate to the fulfilment of the law.
Others besides the communists (the "vulgar" Marxists) are a prey to this rationalist error, as we may learn from a characteristic passage in **Kautsky's Ethik (p. 135), where he speaks of the "moral indignation" which impels the workers to play an active part in the class struggle as being the outcome of their class consciousness. This implies that the workers first acquire the knowledge which underlies their awareness of their class interests, and then only, having recognised it ratiocinatively, proceed to *feel* it as a matter of justice and ethics!"

"The working class fought before it knew. Class war was not born out of class consciousness. On the contrary, class consciousness was born out of the class war, and the class war itself was the outcome of a feeling of class resentment. The workers do not fight as a class because they know themselves to be exploited; but they come to think themselves exploited when, and because, they are engaged in the fight. The theory of exploitation is the product of a struggle engendered by feeling and not by thought."

[Anonymous No.20471315]

>>20470364
Most of academia today involved with Marx aren't into his economics and even ignore it on purpose, e.g. Marcuse.

[Anonymous No.20471324]

>>20471234
Let me paraphrase it for you: you are a faggot.

[Anonymous No.20471325]

>>20471289
>you take a step back and start studying how we come to state such things
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/no-results-found-for-scandal-of-self-knowledge/
"Everything we know, we know without knowing *how* we know. <...>
The scandal of self-knowledge, in other words, is an inescapable artifact of our biology, the fact that the origin of the universe is far less complicated than the machinery required to cognize it.
Any attempt to redress this scandal that ignores its biological basis is, pretty clearly I think, doomed to simply perpetuate it. All traditional attempts to secure self-knowledge, in other words, likely amount to little more than the naïve exploration of discursive crash space–a limit so profound as to seem no limit at all."

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/01/08/do-zombies-dream-of-undead-sheep/
"Rather than seeing the question of self-knowledge as the question of how a brain could possibly communicate/cognize its own activity, they see it as the question of how a mind can know its own mental states. They insist on beginning, as Dretske shows, where the evidence is not.
Biologically speaking, humanity was all but doomed to be confounded by itself. One big reason is simply indisposition: the machinery of seeing is indisposed, too busy seeing. This is what renders modality specific medial neglect, our inability ‘to see seeing’ and the like inescapable. Another involves the astronomical complexity of cognitive processes. Nothing prevents us from seeing where touch ends, or where hearing is mistaken. What one modality neglects can be cognized by another, then subsequently integrated. The problem is that the complexity of these cognitive processes far, far outruns their cognitive capacity. As the bumper-sticker declares, if our brains were so simple we could understand them, we would be too simple to understand our brains!"

[Anonymous No.20471332]

>>20470889
>You mean resorting to mental gymnastics when capitalism doesn't fail?
Marx never made that point though. Only his followers didn't take the memo and continue to claim so. He just said that Capitalism is inherently unstable system, which wasn't really controversial at all in his time. Only now you have most people being fucking drugged on ideology that they claim that "the market will take care of things". Like no one in charge of a company is so fucking stupid to actually believe this shit.
Maybe read Marx instead of twatter faggots that claim to be marxists before you make the x-th post about how you are butthurt about the old guy taking a shit on a shitty system

[Anonymous No.20471344]

>>20471325
Based Bakkerposter.

[Anonymous No.20471402]

>>20471159
Marx was not a statist you idiot

[Anonymous No.20471410]

>>20470751
can you measure a unit of inequality for me please? thanks.

[Anonymous No.20471415]

Russians were more civilized under the soviet union than today.

[Anonymous No.20471423]

Writer who explains the connection between the perennial insanity/violence of the left and their ongoing fascination with Marx?

[Anonymous No.20471425]

>>20471332
when people usually say that the market will fix it they usually mean that the state should not intervene in the market or as little as possible.
besides that, capitalism doesn't exist and the state will never go away.

[Anonymous No.20471427]

>>20470364
Marxism is religion for intellectuals.
Religion is the opium for the masses.
Marxism is opium for intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.20471428]

>>20471427
QED

[Anonymous No.20471430]

>>20471415
how so?
>>20471402
correct, he was a retarded anarchist/liberal

[Anonymous No.20471433]

>>20471332

Except he's clearly been wrong. The freer the market, the more stable the society, at least by peaceful means.

And free markets have nothing to do with the political system. A free-market dictatorship is still superior in material prosperity and personal security than a democratically-elected socialism, which will inevitably have to resort to violence and terror if it actually wants to maintain socialism, which is hardly a big leap since most all of them used violence and terror to attain their "democratic" power in the first place (Ortega, Chavez, Mugabe).

Socialist societies that decide to stop using violence and terror to maintain themselves always end up dying, and dying quickly. If Gorby had decided to use the same methods as Deng Xiaoping to keep the USSR together, it'd still be around to this day.

[Anonymous No.20471434]

[Anonymous No.20471439]

>>20471147
>unions are cringe
Nah fuck off, do you enjoy weekends, sick leave, days off, not getting your hand ripped off at work?

[Anonymous No.20471441]

>>20471433
>The freer the market, the more stable the society
This is pure sophistics.

[Anonymous No.20471446]

>>20471439
nta. He wants a revolution and thinks unions stifle that. But I'll say that unions are effective in removing classical reasoning and judgment from society in favor of a more mass bargaining system. Also, slavery is good for getting certain people to work.

[Anonymous No.20471453]

>>20471439
Not him but unions benefit the elite who are the only ones who are able to deal with the extreme demands and regulations without going under. Gives them even more power than they already have

[Anonymous No.20471454]

>>20471441
it's "sophistry"
also, hierarchy good. Freedom in the name of power but the problem is libertarians think the market can exist without the state.

[Anonymous No.20471456]

>>20471453
How the fuck do unions benefit "the elite" when compared to the mass base of union members? Yeah, fuck small business, it's doomed to go under and just as exploitative anyway, you won't find me defending muh small business petit-bourgeois exploiters, but at the end of the day any dollar the goes into "the elite"'s shareholder pockets is a dollar a worker doesn't get paid, and directly vice-versa. It's a class contradiction - wages vs profits - that can't be argued or wished away, it's an objective fact of reality. And in that fight, unions benefit workers over bosses. I have no sympathy whatsoever for small bosses who exploit workers and wish they were big bosses but just can't get access to the capital.

[Anonymous No.20471466]

>>20471425
>when people usually say that the market will fix it they usually mean that the state should not intervene in the market or as little as possible
They treat the market as some god-like entity that is ruined by human influence, when a free-market solution to economics was brought to life to resolve the issues of mercantilism at a specific time in history. One has to wonder why some people like to mystify political economy so much
>>20471433
>Except he's clearly been wrong. The freer the market, the more stable the society, at least by peaceful means
Not really. Marx argued that the free market has a tendency in itself to turn into monopoly capitalism. I think he was right in that one. I also doubt your "peaceful means" statement, when the opening of markets and the destruction of trade barriers has never been really achieved by "peaceful means" on a grand scale.
>And free markets have nothing to do with the political system
True
>A free-market dictatorship is still superior in material prosperity and personal security than a democratically-elected socialism, which will inevitably have to resort to violence and terror if it actually wants to maintain socialism
What? Don't tell me you are some retarded lolbert who has drank all the ideological kool-aid. The era of neoliberalism has brought nothing but despair for most of the worlds population. Arguing from your sheltered american suburbia won't change that fact.
>Socialist societies that decide to stop using violence and terror to maintain themselves always end up dying, and dying quickly
Violence isn't unique to socialist societies. And socialist societies weren't broken by the people, but by the managerial elite and intellectuals giving up on the project alltogether. Maybe stop getting your "knowledge" from the mises institute

[Anonymous No.20471482]

>>20471456
We aren't getting full communism so all unions do is create soulless capitalism where the elite control every facet of society. I'm not surprised you would prefer this though most communists are soulless people

[Anonymous No.20471488]

>>20471482
I can't tell if you're a rightwinger or a utopian ultraleftist, but I am committed to discussing this in good faith.

Building strong unions is the only option we've got for fighting the elite's work to build soulless capitalism. Unions are literally the only thing happening today that scares the capitalist elite even a little bit. Yes, in an ultraleft Aimee-Therese bullshit analysis unions can be seen as "making life better under capitalism so workers stay subdued", but the huge fight it takes to establish and hold a union position is in practice strongly demonstrative of the fact that it's the only thing that scares capitalism. It's not like "if there's no unions for 50 years you get spontaneous magical revolution", the only way to build to revolution is through unions (and that includes, yes, lots of internal work within unions to propagandise revolutionary ideas, and to work through intermediate blockages to class consciousness). Without unions there's still no magical point where proletarian consciousness spontaneously boils over into a utopian revolution.

[Anonymous No.20471489]

>>20471454
>the problem is libertarians think the market can exist without the state
The Invisible Hand is originally a physiocratic doctrine. And physiocrats took the term "economy" directly from theology.

And in theology it appeared, because "the economy [management] of mystery" was replaced by "the mystery of economy".
Because the gnostics laughed at Jesus being called "kyrios" (house manager), so that medieval monks had to bite the bullet and concoct a weird term-fuckery metaphysics, claiming the word-choice was deliberate.
Because Aristotle was a big deal, and thus, using "oikos"-terms to a "polis"-sphere, was a big no-no.

Therefore, one claims to be a house manager, not a tyrant (as in, a ruler without laws). But in fact, one would be merely replacing a state with a Deep State.

[Anonymous No.20471492]

>>20471454
>the problem is libertarians think the market can exist without the state
*ancaps

[Anonymous No.20471494]

>>20471466
>They treat the market as some god-like entity that is ruined by human influence
nah, they don't want that entity to be ruined by the influence of the sovereign entity, but for the sovereign to allow economic freedom in its market so some equilibrium can be achieved within that space. This may end up with monopoly or not but it will always be multipolar instead of unitary. The problem is that we live in this thing called a "democracy" which is inherently contradictory and unstable.

[Anonymous No.20471496]

>>20471488
>the only option we've got for fighting the elite's work to build soulless capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism#Guild_system

[Anonymous No.20471497]

>>20471489
that's interesting. The economy is mysterious. It will never be a science.

[Anonymous No.20471501]

>>20471489
Based Agambenposter

[Anonymous No.20471503]

>>20471494
speak english goddammit

[Anonymous No.20471513]

>>20471503
sovereign entity = the state
The monopolies of "capitalism" will always be many and different instead of a single homogeneous entity.

[Anonymous No.20471516]

>>20471496
I was raised Catholic and while a Marxist now I have a lot of appreciation for Catholic viewpoints. However, a Guild system is just unionism except where the boss gets more of a say than you do. Distributism is a nice idea "if everyone just gets along" but doesn't work because capitalism introduces and reproduces fundamental class conflict. At its worst, Distributism is just Mussolin's fascist corporatism with the Pope hanging around in the background. If distributism is such a functional ideology why have no Catholic countries built a distributist utopia? btw it's because Capitalism constantly ruins all historical and traditional modes of living asunder. I don't really like quoting the Manifesto as the be-all-end-all but this is one of the issue it addresses most directly:

>The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the PRIEST, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
>The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

[Anonymous No.20471518]

>>20471332
>Marx never made that point though
Where did i said that in my post?
Marx gave socialists a prophecy they defend no matter what kind of shit they're going to come up with, those are your updates.
>Only now you have most people being fucking drugged on ideology that they claim that "the market will take care of things"
Pretty sure the majority of people out there support interventism.

[Anonymous No.20471520]

>>20471516
you're horribly misguided. repent

[Anonymous No.20471522]

>>20471513
The modern state is made up of capitalists and specialists who have stakes in several firms. So your point doesn't hold true anymore

[Anonymous No.20471523]

>>20471488
How is $25 an hour minimum wage for a 16 year old teen worker, extreme regulation, 6 months paid time off, etc etc. supposed to help fight the elite? All that does is hurt the poor old baker who in his old days used to run a bakery for his local community that he poured his heart into and now can't afford so gets bought out by a corporation who installs some soulless factory and can afford to pay for the demands because they make billions already

[Anonymous No.20471526]

>>20470364
>I'm a dipshit
cool bro

[Anonymous No.20471529]

>>20471522
What doesn't hold true anymore? That monopolies are multipolar?

[Anonymous No.20471532]

>>20471522
>The modern state is made up of capitalists
You discovered crony capitalism?

[Anonymous No.20471533]

>>20471522
also, the modern state is made up of its employees who are unfireable and all its political formula comes from the universities. the people you vote for don't matter that much.

[Anonymous No.20471535]

>>20471518
>Where did i said that in my post?
I thought you were implying it. My bad then
>Marx gave socialists a prophecy they defend no matter what kind of shit they're going to come up with, those are your updates
Well Marx was essentially writing a political program or a new ruling class program. And to rule you need to uphold some pretenses no matter how silly they become. See the US for example.
I personally think Marx would have hate this sheeple mindset in his followers who are looking to every word Marx said in order to justify further action instead of actually doing what Marx envisioned, that being using his method of critiquing ruling institituions.
But Marx was also responsible for creating this toxic mindset among socialists, if you look how he corresponded with his fellow socialists. So he is to blame in a lot of parts for this sorry state of communism.
>Pretty sure the majority of people out there support interventism
The majority of people don't dictate policy though. Intellectuals and specialists do and they actually believe their conceits about the world

[Anonymous No.20471537]

daily reminder that there is not a single group which:
1. are producers that society depends upon
2. are the majority of society.
3. in dire need.

[Anonymous No.20471541]

>>20471523
>How is $25 an hour minimum wage for a 16 year old teen worker, extreme regulation, 6 months paid time off, etc etc. supposed to help fight the elite? All that does is hurt the poor old baker who in his old days used to run a bakery for his local community that he poured his heart into and now can't afford so gets bought out by a corporation who installs some soulless factory and can afford to pay for the demands because they make billions already
In short: because if their boss could get away with it they'd be paying Bangladesh wages of $0.25 an hour. The $25 an hour represents two hundred years of fighting to get a better wage. It's not bringing the elite to their knees, but it is the only force that has ever managed to get any concession out of them -- and if you DO want to bring them to their knees, it's the only place to start on the road to real militant workingclass action. Every cent and dollar above that which any worker earns is the product of real class struggle and the relative power of the working class vs the boss class. As for bakers: the baker is most often just a worker in someone else's bakery anyway, and anyone working to bake bread in a bakery owned by someone else, however small, is working under the same fucked up system where they do the work and someone else takes the money.

[Anonymous No.20471545]

>>20470483
>Marxian economics is still relevant. (There’s updates)
Whose are the foremost figures in the field today? The only one I know is Richard Wolff, and he got embarrassed by a twtich streamer.

[Anonymous No.20471546]

>>20471532
You talk in memes?
>>20471529
That there is a binary between the state and capitalist enterprise. The multipolarity of monopolies is also overstated, when most of them don't get hold accountable when economic ruin hits

[Anonymous No.20471547]

>>20471541
It doesn't actually hurt the elite though. They can afford to pay $50 an hour without a breaking a sweat. It's not hurting them. It's hurting the local baker who can't afford $50 an hour. All you're doing is making a society where only the billion dollar corporations can keep up with the demands. Do you not realize this?

[Anonymous No.20471549]

>>20471535
>Intellectuals and specialists
All of those people are progressives. The entire cold war was just progs fighting eachother. The CIA is a communist organization

[Anonymous No.20471550]

>>20471549
>All of those people are progressives
Most progs are hardcore anti-communists

[Anonymous No.20471551]

>>20471547
>They can afford to pay $50 an hour without a breaking a sweat. It's not hurting them.
If that's the case, why do they spend multimillion dollar funds trying to break unions in Amazon, Starbucks, airlines, etc? Why aren't they already paying $50 an hour for entry-level jobs in order to lure so much labour away from their competitors that they can't compete? This is bullshit, capitalism is predicated on this fact: companies MUST make profit for shareholders, they do this by exploiting workers, and every dollar a worker earns is a dollar they can't pay out as profit to a shareholder's dividend.

The small baker is just playing the same game except he's hopping mad he can't play in the big leagues and exploit his workers more. Look at all these buyouts -- capitalism naturally tends towards monopoly, naturally tends towards little guys going broke and big guys like Walmart and Amazon picking up all the marketshare. The only hope under these conditions is to build a monopoly of labor - a union - in order to counter the monopoly of capital armed against us (and armed with trillions of dollars more, plus the news media, the advertising industry, you name it).

[Anonymous No.20471556]

>>20471466

Not remotely. Singapore and Pinochet's Chile and Taiwan under the KMT are, and were, not remotely libertarian states. They were all still preferable to their Commie alternatives. Even the relatively immature socialism of Allende nearly brought Chile to complete ruin, and he would've turned the whole country into a mountainous Venezuela had it not been for Pinochet.

Same thing with postwar Germany. The richest part of the DDR was still significantly poorer and more miserable than the poorest and most miserable part of the West. The same was true of Arab and Berber Socialism versus Arab and Berber Monarchies.

Hell, the same's true of Cuba and Puerto Rico. It's hard to think if two countries which have more in common: Catholic, Spanish-speaking, multiracial Caribbean Islands which went from Spanish colonies to American vassals at the turn of the century. Both states were some of the first places in the Americas explored by Colombus, and both states had similar GDPs up to the 1950s. And nowadays, literally nobody but the Cuban nomenklatura would rather live in Cuba than Puerto Rico. Cuba went from being one of the nicest places in Latin America to about as grim and oppresive a shithole as anywhere but Haïti, and lately their colony of Venezuela.

It happens every time. There's not one example of socialism ever making anything better, and every possible upside to it can be achieved better via nonsocialist means. Land reform happened in Japan just as it did in Vietnam and China, except without mass murder, and nobody who isn't a complete retard or a complete lunatic would rather live in Vietnam or China above Japan.

[Anonymous No.20471559]

>>20471546
>That there is a binary between the state and capitalist enterprise
I didn't. Business enterprises just aren't that important. It's like willfully chasing the tail and ignoring the dog because you think of yourself as being "above" ethics and beliefs because now when you talk to people about your ideology you can just say "heh, I'm just fighting for my class."
>The multipolarity of monopolies is also overstated, when most of them don't get hold accountable when economic ruin hits
meaningless. Give them absolute power if you want them to have more accountability. Stop pretending the sovereign doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.20471560]

>>20471545
Wolff is from my city

[Anonymous No.20471563]

>>20471549
They barely even fought eachother. The US elite and the USSR were often on good terms.
>>20471550
they just think you are doing progressivism wrong. You people essentially want the same thing.

[Anonymous No.20471565]

>>20471535
>Marx would have hate this sheeple mindset in his followers who are looking to every word Marx said in order to justify further action instead of actually doing what Marx envisioned
What marx envisioned? If we're talking about his analysis about capitalism killing itself, people defending it is not a misunderstanding.
>The majority of people don't dictate policy though. Intellectuals and specialists do and they actually believe their conceits about the world
Still economic liberalism is anything but taken seriously nowdays, so my point stands.

[Anonymous No.20471566]

>>20471556
Oh cool, I never knew Puerto Rico suffered under over half a century of total US trade embargo.

>>20471545
Paul Cockshott is good (youtube he is an 80 year old Scottish boomer computer scientist with lots of interesting content if you like nerd shit, the exact opposite of the humanist/"grievance studies" Marxist).

[Anonymous No.20471567]

>>20471551
>If that's the case, why do they spend multimillion dollar funds
Use your brain for a minute. No one wants to willingly be unionized or willingly lose money It's a headache and anyone would fight against it. That doesn't mean they wouldn't get over it and continue to make billions of dollars that you aren't getting.

>and exploit his workers more
You really are soulless. Some people just want to bake bread man and you want to get rid of this guy and have a Panera take over instead.

[Anonymous No.20471576]

>>20471567
>No one wants to willingly be unionized
The fuck? Why are hundreds of thousands of people joining unions then? It's because they know only a union can protect them against the boss trying to fuck their shit up, especially in a time of inflation (where "stable pay" vs 5+% inflation means pay cuts in real terms, just so the money from the higher prices can go into someone else's paycheque).

If the village baker JUST wants to bake bread, why doesn't he start up a small co-operative where everyone owns an equal share in the business? This is a sensible and noble kind of goal, and in this system everyone gets to decide their pay (and if they want to take home a bit less money to reinvest in their shared business, that's sensible).


Instead, if he wants to make money without having to do the work, he should be ready to face up to workers unionising for better pay. If he takes home a dollar more than the average wage of his workers, he's a boss and deserves to get fucked up for being lazy. If he just wants to bake bread, that is a good and noble goal, and he should start a co-operative to work with others to provide a necessary social service without exploiting anyone else's work. I'm not even a dogmatist here -- maybe he could employ some apprentices, expecting them to move on to other businesses, without making them full members? It would still be an ethical duty to maybe pay them a bit above average apprentice wages and give them good craftsmanlike training.

[Anonymous No.20471581]

>>20471576
I unequivocally apologise for this fucked redditspacing, I did not intend this to happen.

[Anonymous No.20471585]

>>20471546
>You talk in memes?
Should i follow your own definition of capitalism?

[Anonymous No.20471588]

Marxism is for bugmen

[Anonymous No.20471589]

>>20471566
>Paul Cockshott
Isn't he the "Marx without Hegel" guy? Are there any more traditional/orthodox Marxian economists out there, or is this what it's become?

[Anonymous No.20471594]

>>20471576
Not him but:
>Why are hundreds of thousands of people joining unions then?
>*shows a graph where unions subscriptions are going down*
>why doesn't he start up a small co-operative where everyone owns an equal share in the business?
>*gets outcompeted by anyone doing it for profit*
Also cooperatives here in south europe are 10 times more soulless than a private company, since they have benefites by the state.

[Anonymous No.20471596]

>>20471589
He is a Marx-without-Hegel guy, and as a Hegel-influenced Marxist I don't agree with that aspect of his thought. He's still been very influential for me. You could also check out Michael Roberts' "The Next Recession", Ian Wright's "Dark Marxism", and while more anarchist I find Adrian Ivakhiv's process philosophy interesting as well. The main point in this kind of Marxism is that it's been mostly driven out of the academy, which has actually been salutary in a lot of ways because it means Marxism isn't as vulnerable to the kind of personality-cult/great-guru bullshit it has been beholden to in the past upsurges. If you want Marx, read Marx and whichever 20th century marxists you think are interesting. If you want contemporary Marxism, join an org and see what people are talking about inside that org. In general if you're looking for newer stuff you should look into whatever is being published by Pluto press, Monthly Review (John Smith yes his real name, is a treasure), Verso (which also a publishes a bit of Guardianista bullshit but also some real OG orthodox Marxist types). Zero Books has published some real gems (Mark Fisher esp.) but mostly I like the joke that it's named that after the number of real books it has published.

[Anonymous No.20471598]

>>20471566
>Paul Cockshott
His Name is Gogshod????
Lige Benis???? :DDDDDD
U R Giddings rite???? :DDDDD
What is he Shooding??? Sberm XDDDDD

[Anonymous No.20471600]

>>20471598
Dickblast, Phalluspop, Johntompsondetonation, Genitalsplash, dat's rite, fugg :DDDD

[Anonymous No.20471604]

>>20471576
>The fuck?
Sorry I was talking about the company. No company wants to deal with a union. Regulation is annoying. Neither do you really. If I told you to live in your house you now have go through all this regulation spend all this money and you're going to have inspector come and check your place every week to live in you would rightly be annoyed. It's not the end of the world it's just extremely annoying.
>why doesn't he start up a small co-operative
Because cooperatives are retarded. Why should some 16 year old pimple faced dork who is just preparing the dough for me during his part time summer job get to own half my business and now tell me how to run it?
> he should be ready to face up to workers unionising for better pay.
It's just not possible to compete with a corporation especially if you got unionized. It's hard for small businesses to exist as is in this market and add in forced unionization and $25 wage and they won't exist anymore. There is no other option. You are creating a soulless corporate run world by killing off the little guy.

[Anonymous No.20471623]

>>20471604
Capitalism itself creates the world where the little guy gets ground beneath the wheels. I'm not interested in the fate of the virtuous small businessman because his eventual fate always was and always is to either get ground into proletarianism or to make the one in a million shot to hit it rich by getting access to more capital. This is a basic mechanism of capitalism since the early days, it's not unions doing this, it's capitalism itself. In the face of a system that constantly trends towards monopoly, the only option the workers have is to form their own monopoly to counterpose the forces of large business. I acknowledge the aesthetic beauty of the small baker and his small-trade (brewer, butcher, etc.) economy, and I am sorry your middleclass petit-bourgeois small businessman is getting ground against the millstones of haute-bourgeois grand capitalism, but it's the inevitable tendency of the system he has signed up to and pledged his loyalty to, and can't nothing be done about it except to fight capitalism writ large or get wrecked by it. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx makes a good point that the communists should try to make this point of shared economic interest to the small tradesman as potential proletarian (rather than writing him off on moralistic grounds as an inherent class enemy), but if he doesn't listen there's not much we can do. He'll get fucked regardless, and if the workers don't unionise, the only choice they will have is being fucked by the small capitalist or the big capitalist. And in time, the small capitalist will still get eaten up by the big capitalist, and then we'll have the only choice that remains -- unionise or starve.

[Anonymous No.20471635]

>>20470364
>Why
For the same reason people take other kinds of shit seriously: to feel like they belong with other like-minded people, aka tribalism.

[Anonymous No.20471637]

>>20471604
>It's hard for small businesses to exist as is in this market and add in forced unionization
It's not that the biggest problem, the problem is you're trying to fight a hierarchy with a clear chain of command and fixed wages with a democratic company where everyone gets an equal share of money and can't be fired if they fuck up.

[Anonymous No.20471652]

>>20471623
>because his eventual fate always was and always is to either get ground into proletarianism or to make the one in a million shot to hit it rich by getting access to more capital
I don't think people who bake bread and start little antique shops are trying to make it to the 1% my man. Those people are what make society and your community a great place to live and you want to fuck them to get at the "man" who isn't even hurt by this.
>it's capitalism itself. In the face of a system that constantly trends towards monopoly,
It's both really. I don't deny the need for government regulation to stop the corporations but not at the expense of the small guy
>he communists should try to make this point of shared economic interest to the small tradesman as potential proletarian
The tradesman knows the Communist will kill him the first chance they get. You don't want to make a good society to live in. You want equality at all costs. You have no interest in the aesthetic. I know your type
>and if the workers don't unionise
Can you acknowledge that unionization won't change much besides slightly bettering the life of the proletariat? Unionization won't stop these companies from existing and continuing to make profit. All unionization does is bandage capitalism the same way social democracy does. I know this my uncle is in an union. Why would a unionman want a Communist revolution when he knows he has a steady high paying job with a pension for retirement. A revolution means the possibility of losing the pension and the job in the chaos of the economic change.
>Because cooperatives are retarded. Why should some 16 year old pimple faced dork who is just preparing the dough for me during his part time summer job get to own half my business and now tell me how to run it?
I would like you to answer this that you avoided. This will be a problem under socialisms too.

[Anonymous No.20471655]

>>20471623
>but it's the inevitable tendency of the system he has signed up to and pledged his loyalty to, and can't nothing be done about it except to fight capitalism writ large or get wrecked by it
My baker is still alive after 50 years of competition from great supermarkets, as well as other bakers around the city, so...

[Anonymous No.20471660]

>>20471655
Good on him. Let's see how he does with $25 an hour minimum wage and forced unionization.

[Anonymous No.20471671]

>>20471660
Sorry i'm not in america.

[Anonymous No.20471684]

>>20471652
Can you read mate? What I am saying is that, even ignoring unions altogether, they'll get ground under the heel of the 1% with unions or without, it's inevitable and it's been borne out con stantly over hundreds of years of capitalism. Even the successful ones >>20471655 are just an "every 5-10 years" financial crisis away from getting fucked up and bought out by Globobakery Inc, which has more capital and is constantly driven to keep investing in new profitable enterprises. It's fundamentally just capitalism, it'll do this constantly (and if you want an example, look at US right-to-work states or any other place with miniscule unionisation -- small business is still continually ground under the heel of large business there).
>The tradesman knows the Communist will kill him the first chance they get. You don't want to make a good society to live in. You want equality at all costs. You have no interest in the aesthetic. I know your type
Okay. I am trying to talk to you in good faith. Sorry if you don't want to keep talking to me because you know me better than I do. If I said "I know you, you just want wealth at all costs because you are a running-dog accomplice of the bourgeoisie" you'd rightly call me a cunt.
>Can you acknowledge that unionization won't change much besides slightly bettering the life of the proletariat?
Yeah, that's what unionism does as a bare minimum. It's also been the jumping-off point for every event with revolutionary potential. It's also the only institution that functions as an active check on capital, the only thin that engages the fundamental contradiction between a dollar of wages going to a worker and a dollar of profits going to shareholders who do no work.
>Co-operatives are retarded
Yes, co-operatives regularly get fucked up under capitalism, this is part of my argument that no "virtuous" small business can really prosper and so workers are ultimately driven to proletarianisation and have unions as their only hope. My general schema was always that small business is going to have a hard time, it's what I have been arguing all along. Mind you, some co-operatives do very well, and you have to compare them to the number of capitalist businesses that are constantly going bust under capitalism. And yes, this requires the kind of sacrifice that would otherwise be required not just of a business owner but also of every worker in that business who, by definition, is being exploited every time their boss gets paid.

I was just saying that if the "le virtuous baker" JUST wants to bake bread, as a calling and vocation rather than a profitable enterprise, he could do it like this (or other slightly modified forms, such as owning it all but only taking an average wage and reinvesting every single penny). In practice, most small businessmen are just there trying to make a bunch of money off their employees and it doesn't matter to them if they own a bakery or a porno studio as long as they're making money.

[Anonymous No.20471685]

Communism works, just get rid of the government, all other competing governments(including tyrannical "not real" communists and capitalists that will outcompete your communism), the means to develop new governments and capitalist systems that will outcompete your system, and you're good to go. Communism that will work.
I unironically believe it's the ideal, but...

[Anonymous No.20471722]

>>20471684
>What I am saying is that, even ignoring unions altogether,
I agree but unionization is just as bad as capitalism. It doesn't help the little guy. We have to stop both monopoly capitalism and unionization if the little guys want to survive.
>Okay. I am trying to talk to you in good fait
Okay I apologize but am I wrong? I do spend a lot of time in leftists communities so I know they don't give a shit about a baker or about a cathedral or about aesthetics. It's about equality. They would burn down all of society for equality.
>. Why would a unionman want a Communist revolution when he knows he has a steady high paying job with a pension for retirement. A revolution means the possibility of losing the pension and the job in the chaos of the economic change.
Can you answer this? It's pretty important point
>Yes, co-operatives regularly get fucked up under capitalism, t
This is not my argument. Under a cooperative or worker ownership the 16 year old pimple faced dork who is just preparing the dough for me during his part time summer job will get to own half my business and now tell me how to run it. That's what worker ownership means. Why should that happen? It's makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.20471723]

>>20471684
>financial crisis away from getting fucked up and bought out by Globobakery Inc, which has more capital and is constantly driven to keep investing in new profitable enterprises
Slow the fuck down, a market economy irl doesn't work according to perfect competition.

The reason why my baker is still alive is because he's able to diversify himself and satisfy the local demand alongside other bakers and supermarkets.
You will hardly find that kind of taste and consistency with factory produced bread (or those tasty handmade cookies, or taking orsers from people with allergies), that's the reason why people keep buying from him.

Globohomobakery Inc. may face problems if the bread is not made of the same quality, they're not the only ones who can open a company as well so they're forced to be up to the standards.

[Anonymous No.20471747]

I mean, as long as i know the only problem my baker is facing is the higher price of grain, increasing the prices.

And guess who's responsible for that?
Governments, with wars and sanctions.

[Anonymous No.20471753]

>>20471722
>just as bad as capitalism
In the sense that a cold is just as bad as cancer.
>Am I wrong
I think you are wrong on this. A lot of communists I know, including myself (and I'm a card-carrying Marxist party member, not an internet armchair lefty) do care about aesthetics. If you look into historical Marxist and Leninist practice, it's not "all about equality", it's mostly "all about wealth" in the sense of social wealth, communal wealth, the kind of thing you measure by good roads, leafy streets, working hospitals. Most Marxists are happy with doctors or firefighters earning more (20-50% more, not Elon Musk riches) than janitors if it compensates for better medicine and firefighting. I don't like cathedrals myself very much because I see them as mostly empty wastes of labor in the modern day, but I see the beauty they can hold (just centuries ago, before industrialism). You can't dispute that the USSR produced some cathedral-tier monuments.
>Why would a union man want Communist revolution
Because the days of the steady high-paying job + a good pension are fifty years behind us. The point is that, no matter what high water mark our fathers fought for, capitalism is always incentivised to keep chipping away at it. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is a real historical phenomenon and easily measured. After the brutality of the 1980s Thatcher-Reagan-etc. governments restored profit rates, we're right back at a point where profit rates are falling and the attempts to maintain them is causing inflation to start catching up with us workers. A 1970s union man has no direct incentive to be a communist, but every worker posesses a brain, and can see the historical trends and think "this bullshit hit my granddad, my dad, and me, and my son -- maybe we should do something permanent about this".
>Pimple-faced dork
If you don't want to give him a share in the business, simply don't hire him, or get him on a contract for ten years of work in exchange for a share. I literally addressed alternative ethical employement apprenticeship schemes above.

[Anonymous No.20471777]

>>20471753
>You can't dispute that the USSR produced some cathedral-tier monuments.
Yeah but Stalin was quite a Traditionalist in some areas. I don't think you would deny at least online the majority of leftists are for the destruction of society. They don't even hide it. They admit it openly.
>Because the days of the steady high-paying job + a good pension are fifty years behind us
Not really like I said my uncle is in the union and I know the deal. Anyone in a union is going to end up with a high paying job with a pension at least where I live. I think it holds up almost everywhere.
>capitalism is always incentivised to keep chipping away at it.
I think capitalism can be reformed and you will say this is unlikely but it's nowhere as unlikely as a worldwide communist revolution.
>or get him on a contract for ten years of work in exchange for a share
How is this different from wage labor?

[Anonymous No.20471779]

>>20471753
>Most Marxists are happy with doctors or firefighters earning more (20-50% more, not Elon Musk riches) than janitors if it compensates for better medicine and firefighting
I'm not the guy you're replying to but i always thought this kind of reasoning is dangerous.
Throwing money/resources at the problem not necessarily means better services.
You sure are going to make people happier but you're also instigating corruption and relaxation because they get free money from you regardless of how much they work.

[Anonymous No.20471784]

>>20471314
>"Among the great thinkers and the ardent enthusiasts who were pioneers in the field of socialist theory, hardly one proletarian can be named"
>"Beyond dispute, socialism, though in course of time it has become the objective of the labour movement and supplies that movement with a program, is, historically considered, not so much a doctrine of the proletariat as a doctrine *for* the proletariat. Were we to accept the misleading terminology of Marxism, which tells us that every specific kind of social ideology is the expression of the outlook of some particular class, we should be compelled to describe socialism, including Marxism, as a bourgeois growth."
Literally just as Marx wrote himself.

>"In reality, the undoubted fact that the originators of socialist doctrines have almost invariably been bourgeois intellectuals, shows that psychological motives are at work, motives which have nothing whatever to do with class interests."
Wrong, as lots of members of the bourgeois class are interested in class conflict and formation development, as in the status quo they get fucked by the top bourgeoisie and state as it's tool. Just like bourgeoisie itself emerged not just from burghers, but from burghers AND petty nobility that had no choice but to enter capitalist market, as top aristocracy was fucking them out of rent. Similarly, petty bourgeoisie is not interested in unrestrained market (where Jeff Morgan McDonalds will throatfuck them raw), and as such pushes socialist ideology in the shape of interventionist policies, using populism of those policies among the proles as the leverage. QED.

>"For Marx, knowledge, awareness, was the primary determinant, the class will was the outcome of class consciousness. We are confronted with a kind of mystical revelation: a revolutionary necessity hovers in the air, as a scientifically demonstrated principle inherent in the developmental laws of the capitalist method of production; the workers, the "midwives" of the revolution, need only recognise the truth of this principle, and they will take the steps requisite to bring about the birth. They are the instruments of a dialectic which already lives as a law in a supraterrestrial sphere before it descends to earth and enters the minds of the human beings whom knowledge will stimulate to the fulfilment of the law.
Wrong. Marx states that proletariat has no class consciousness.

[Anonymous No.20471798]

>>20471779
Capital concentration is absolutely inevitable in a capitalist mode of production, duh. Trying to avoid concentration can be noble and situationally useful, but it is ultimately futile as long as the capitalist mode of production determined by means of production dominates the economy. This is why revolution is the key element in the classical Marxist perspective - it's impossible to "patch" capitalist system into stability.

Post-Marxists and other Marxians often disagree tho.

[Anonymous No.20471800]

>>20471777
>My uncle
Well good on your uncle and his union. But surely he knows people, possibly including you, who aren't likely to be guaranteed this kind of good run. Any union that can maintain these good conditions drives average wages up for every other worker, so it's good news. But in the end capital always comes sniffing around trying to either chip away at wages or offshore jobs where labour is cheaper (starting the same fight going again in other countries like Bangladesh or Indonesia, which are most definitely engaging in some serious union fights right now). Your uncle isn't an idiot for enjoying a nice wage, but sooner or later capitalism comes for everyone.
>Capitalism can be reformed
To be honest, if reformism worked I would happily be a reformist. I'm only a commie because reformism doesn't work, or more precisely, any reformist force that gains the power to make reforms usually ends up giving up on reforms and turns into something like the SPD/PCF/Labo(u)r. If there was a serious militant reformist party with a history of genuine reforms I'd be strongly supportive.
>How is this different from wage labor?
Well you don't get a share after ten years of wage labor. You might get it as some kind of really high-end share options silicon valley labour, but if you're getting rewarded with shares in SV you're doing something that isn't wage labour. (Incidentally, a pure startup in the early days often DOES function as a commune/co-op, and it's no coincidence that these often are the most productive and interesting times for these businesses)

[Anonymous No.20471804]

>>20470364
I know it's bait, but 'material surroundings' refers to a predominant mode of production, not transient periods between historical epochs. You can do better OP.

[Anonymous No.20471813]

>>20471800
>ty with a history of genuine reforms I'd be strongly supportive.
Surely you think this is more likely than a worldwide communist revolution. Communism is the fringe of fringe 95% of society is just centrist liberal with no signs of changing. I don't know where you live but in the US Bernie Sanders the most human proletariat supporting no scandal politician we ever had couldn't even win a primary over one of the most hated politicians in the US a warhawk criminal bought by corporations who was known couldn't beat Trump yet we still voted for her over Sanders
>Well you don't get a share after ten years of wage labor.
It's not really that much different than wage labor. No disrespect but you sure you are a Marxist? No socialist would accept this at all. It has the same problems of wage labor.

[Anonymous No.20471815]

>>20471798
Thank you for the non-response with some dumb shit about accumulation, big companies spend a lot and pay their workers so their money are circulating into the economy, also they're usually big because they offer a successful product or service (unless they have the favor of the state).

[Anonymous No.20471833]

>>20471813
huh

[Anonymous No.20471845]

>>20471813
Not really more likely. I think reformist wins are constantly at risk of being chipped away at, and constantly being undermined. I can't predict the future and I'm not saying we're going to have The Glorious People's International Revolution in the next decade. But the fundamental contradiction is going to keep popping up - every dollar a worker earns is a dollar that doesn't get paid to a shareholder -- and in the face of that contradiction, something's gotta give. You can deliver small reforms for a long time under any conditions where things are propsperous enough to give the workers some crumbs from the table, but the moment the rate of profit crashes again we're back to square one and facing up to the fundamental contradiction. We could also end up with "the common ruin of the contending classes" and some kind of Mad Max civilisational collapse, but I see that as slightly less likely.
>Not much different getting a share in a co-operative business than wage labor
It's a hell of a lot different to wage labor, you're getting a share in a bloody co-operative. They're chalk and cheese. In terms of my orthodoxy, I am not an 'orthodox' Marxist-Leninist but I am influenced by Marx, Lenin, Engels, Mao, etc. We're in a time when it's very important to be open to all sorts of thinkers, and able to orient ourselves properly to the changing conditions of the age (which is, after all, the core of Leninism). I don't think co-ops are the final stage of perfect socialism, but I think they're a strong option we have for the intermediate phase between capitalism and PERFECT FULL COMMUNISM, whenever that gets here. If I had to bet, I think we'll get some total monopolism (think: every business a Walmart/Amazon/AT&T) and that will be countered by unions. It's a lot easier to unionise workers in one faceless mega-company than to get every employee of a thousand small general stores and bakeries to join the union against a boss they know personally and their Mum went to school with. Capitalism will continue to fuck with that bakery guy and will keep trending towards monopoly, leaving us one real option at the End of History. But in the meantime, co-ops are another option.

[Anonymous No.20471854]

>>20471845
What exactly does this share entail? I've heard people talk about this but I've never understood what it actually means for the worker and the business.

[Anonymous No.20471857]

>>20471813
>Communism is the fringe of fringe 95% of society is just centrist liberal with no signs of changing.
Damn, and here this board has lead to believe that Gommunists have infiltrated literally every single facet of society and subverted everything, and that the Western Culture is doomed unless we stop them.

[Anonymous No.20471863]

>>20471815
>"everything works as intended, goyim"
Sure thing pal.

[Anonymous No.20471864]

>>20471857
Cultural Marxism is different and doesn't need to be popular among the masses It just needs to exist among a select number of people with power to take hold which it does and did.

[Anonymous No.20471867]

>>20471857
A few nutjobs in key positions can really fuck things up.

[Anonymous No.20471878]

>>20471854
Okay, so imaging a business with $1 million of capital. In our shitty little bakery example we're talking industrial ovens, real estate it's built on maybe, plus shit like bulk bread flour out the back. You've also maybe got some accounting capital like "a brand everyone in the suburb trusts" and the intellectual property for the best bread in town, that some accountant can put a number on, but I'm not terribly interested in that exactly. Count it in anyway.

In this scenario, a share means exactly what it means in regular capitalist share trading:1/n th of the capital, divided among n owners. So for a co-op, if there are ten workers in the co-operative, a share in this business means 1/10th of the total capital, or $100k in our magical example money.

So now everyone goes and does work, and the bakery brings in a perfect round exemplary $1000 a day. The workers get together and decide to re-invest half of this $1000 in the bakery -- some of it goes to maintaining the ovens, paying taxes, etc., and the rest goes to maybe buying a new oven every five or ten years. Then everyone splits the rest evenly per share, so $500 among ten co-op owners = taking home $50 a day as pay.

[Anonymous No.20471879]

>>20471863
>let me switch to /pol/ talking
Ok nigger.

[Anonymous No.20471896]

>>20471878
So I have to give someone a share who is contracted for a short period? An 18 year old isn't expected to work at a bakery his whole life it's a part time job for a short while but he gets a full share in the company? Does he have to sell the share when he leaves?

[Anonymous No.20471897]

>>20471878
>Then everyone splits the rest evenly per share, so $500 among ten co-op owners = taking home $50 a day as pay.
Well, we found why you get outcompeted by any private company taking all of it and reinvesting in better stuff, lel.

[Anonymous No.20471898]

>>20470364
> I understand some random teenager taking up the concepts from them, but he's practically worshipped even among university professors despite his ideology proving to be such a disastrous failure in the last century.
Outside of the humanities you're very unlikely to find anyone with a positive opinion on Marx. If you seriously think physics and economics or anything else is filled with Marxists you're in for a surprise.

>I mean this is why conservatives are so hesitant to send their kids to university, rightfully so honestly.
It's really not. Conservatives are opposed to a wide variety of thing but they're not liberals and are religious. Maybe you forget but a decade ago they were afraid of evolutionary biology and that creationism wasn't getting a fair treatment.

>>20470483
Everything's "relevant". Marx is as "relevant" as Austrianism but they're both fringe. Chicago school means monetarism and if anything it's the deadest (cryptobros believe in the private sector and every central banks gave up on monetarist targeting already in the 80s when it didn't work)... MMT is a form of post-Keyensianism.

>>20470751
>Supply-Side (trickle-down) economics based on imaginary Laffer Curve
Ironically it functioned in a Keyensian manner in its youth. Lowering federal taxes "failed" and resulted in the government running larger deficits but so what. Your critism should be it's a trick to move towards flat taxation and tax cuts weren't deep enough on the lower end.

>>20470771
Wrong. The most aggressive period was in the 50s and everythings been on the path of being rolled back since then.

>>20471165
>Advocacy for tax cuts does not contradict Marxism
On regressive taxes that's true but otherwise nonsensical

>If anything, its self-interested.
That isn't a class theory though. In the self-interest of who?

>I am a Marxist and I voted for trump twice precisely for tax cuts materially benefited me.
The government sending out checks probably did much more on that front. Trump increased tariffs which are the most reactionary form of taxation in certain regards so if anything he made income distribution more regressive on that front alone.

[Anonymous No.20471907]

>>20471896
I said it several times above, you moron. You've got a couple of options here. One option is simply not hiring people who aren't members of the co-op. Another option, because I am not a utopian, is offering some kind of apprenticeship scheme where it's acknowledged that kids aren't going to stick around, so you offer them above-market apprentice wages and a good craftsmanlike training system. A third option (which is how we got here) is requiring apprentices to serve some time, like 5 or 10 years, before giving them a share in return for demonstrating that they're really interested and committed to being part of your local bakery which is the fabric of the community.

>>20471897
Does it help you if I take my play example and modify it so that the bakery earns fifteen trillion dollars per second and the workers vote to reinvest ninety percent of it into becoming the biggest bakery in the solar system while still becoming millionaires after a single day's work? Shit contribution, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.20471912]

>>20471907
Why wouldn't I fire this person and hire another and just keep doing it without making them a member?

[Anonymous No.20471916]

>>20471897
Hang on a second capitalist-kun, can you please name me a profitable private company that pays zero wages and reinvests 100% of all revenue

[Anonymous No.20471920]

>>20471912
Because then you'd be running a capitalist business, not a co-op, which is obviously an option but it's not relevant when we're discussing co-operatives. You're just back to square one >>20471567 with the earlier arguments about how small businesses where Papa Giuseppi just wants to bake-a the bread will keep getting fucked up by market forces and bought out by larger capital holdings (or forced into liquidation when the landlord raises the rent, or whatever other capitalist market-forces issue you care to name).

[Anonymous No.20471924]

>>20471920
Yes but under market socialism how are you going to stop me from just finding a reason to not make a guy a member into my cooperative?

[Anonymous No.20471930]

>>20471924
I'm not really a market socialism guy, I'm not arguing for some unrestrained market socialism. So the answer is the same as why you can't go around starting up your own slave plantation today - you'd be prevented from doing this by things like laws, state regulation, and social pressure.

[Anonymous No.20471932]

>>20471907
>Does it help you if I take my play example and modify it so that the bakery earns fifteen trillion dollars per second
There's no need to reinvest in this case, you're in practice the only baker in the world satisfying an infinite demand.

[Anonymous No.20471942]

>>20471916
No, but i can name millions that pays less than what is splitted among member of a co-op.

[Anonymous No.20471951]

>>20471942
Yes, because they take that money as profit and distribute it to their shareholders. That's the point, and the difference, between a co-op where workers are shareholders and a corporation where the shareholders get paid just by virtue of owning a bit of paper that says they get a share in the profits.

[Anonymous No.20471956]

>>20471930
Sounds like it would be kinda hard to regulate. Who are you to tell me I'm forced to hire someone that I don't want to.

Also someone dude preparing dough or cleaning the donuts doesn't' want to work a fucking pizza place for his entire 60 year span. Why would ever want to become a member in the first place? People have numerous jobs in their life time. Some people move or just work short time jobs for some income.

This idea sounds kinda retarded too what if my company isn't making profit or barely making profit like many businesses do? All the money goes back into the business + wages what is some dude working going to think about this?

Also what if I have a business that is making millions of dollars and it's only run by me but I need some to clean the floor because I don't have enough time to do that. What percentage of my million dollar company do I have to give to this guy? Is he going to vote my multi million dollar business along with taking my millions because he cleans the floor???

[Anonymous No.20471966]

>>20471951
Except that in case of private companies you buy the shares, they're funding the company unlike workers getting a share by the privilege of working.

[Anonymous No.20471970]

>>20471956
>Who are you to tell me I'm forced to hire someone that I don't want to.
We've already got a big network of rules and regulations around this stuff, like you can't sell milk made of chalk powder, or pay people less than minimum wage, or force people to work 18 hour days.
>Some dude doesn't want to do this forever
I originally brought up co-ops as an answer to what to do about Papa Giuseppi who just wants to bake-a the bread for the local village. As I've said before, I think unions are the more realistic outcome than some flourishing network of co-ops, at least under current circumstances. But some people do want to work in the same place for a lifetime, especially if it's associated with a craft and vocation, plus they have control over their working conditions, they like their co-workers and aren't being ordered around like a fry cook at McDonald's. Co-ops are a solution to this problem, not the general solution to all problems of labour relations.
>All the money goes back into the business + wages what is some dude working going to think about this?
Well, what does he think of this right now? This is the situation already happening for most people, they only get paid some shitty wage and any extra profit goes to someone else who does not work for it. Often enough the shareholders and CEOs are still getting paid huge fuckloads even while the company continues to borrow into debt.

p.s. comrades I am off for the night, I will check in on this thread in eight to ten hours if it's still up, thanks for the good bants and more-or-less intelligent and respectful discussion.

[Anonymous No.20471995]

>>20471970
>We've already got a big network of rules and regulations around this stuff, like you can't sell milk made of chalk powder, or pay people less than minimum wage, or force people to work 18 hour days.
We don't have regulation that says you are forced to hire this person for the rest of his life and he will work with you, own part of your business, and control your business even though you don't want him to because we the state tell you to. That's beyond authoritarian
>Co-ops are a solution to this problem,
I can count on one hand the amount of people I know who would actually stay at their job for the rest of their lives. I think that's extremely rare especially if their job is cleaning toilets at the local burger place. They don't have a dream to run a burger shop. I feel cooperatives seem like a honest good thing to help people but feasibility wise it just doesn't make sense. I can understand full on Soviet Socialism because they didn't have this retarded cooperative structure they ran workplaces like capitalist workplaces. They fired people who sucked and didn't work. They didn't give people ownership in a company because it makes no sense. If you didn't want to work you quit your job and moved you weren't some part owner in every company you worked at. Workers don't want to become part owners they want to be paid a wage

[Anonymous No.20472018]

>>20471995
Just to reiterate almost no one is working in the field they want to work. No one working at the hundreds of stores in strip malls do so because they have a dream to. Turning these all into cooperatives make no sense. No one wants to become a part owner of a Dominos or Dollar general. No one wants to work that long and no one wants that responsibility for something they don't care about.

[Anonymous No.20472045]

>>20472018
Yes, one answer for this scenario is unionisation rather than co-ops, which wont abolish shit work but can make it better, increase pay and living conditions, and change the wages vs profit/labor vs capital balance. Another even better answer is to abolish all socially unnecessary labor like anyone involved in sales, and shifting to an economy based on production to satisfy social needs rather than production. We could get rid of all the people drudging along in pointles jobs like sales and marketing and either give them jobs in productive industry or share the work so we all do less work and have more free time to do what we want (and bread nerds can do that as a hobby).

[Anonymous No.20472057]

>>20471970
>We've already got a big network of rules and regulations around this stuff, like you can't sell milk made of chalk powder, or pay people less than minimum wage, or force people to work 18 hour days.
As if they never backfire, minimum wage for example makes companies hire less people since workers are more expensive, i can hardly see how people are going to buy chalk powder milk if they consult each others but i know it was an example for product quality and some regulations are actually fine, people working 18 hours per day would be pretty difficult to find but i guess regulation is also fine for this aspect of our economy.

But forcing coops to be a thing is just going to wreck companies and the economy itself.

[Anonymous No.20472058]

>>20472045
I agree unionization solves this problem but then the problem of killing off the small business and giving power to the elite comes in so we're back to square one. Reforming capitalism is really the only thing that makes sense for the worker and society as a whole. No one is being harmed by reform capitalism.

[Anonymous No.20472062]

>>20472045
Production based on profit* should be the second bit

[Anonymous No.20472090]

>>20470751
You presuppose that inequality must be avoided. Conservatives aver that inequality is inevitable. Reality supports their conclusion.

[Anonymous No.20472094]

>>20471139
You don't actually believe that. It just sounds cool

[Anonymous No.20472102]

>>20472045
>Another even better answer is to abolish all socially unnecessary labor like anyone involved in sales, and shifting to an economy based on production to satisfy social needs rather than production. We could get rid of all the people drudging along in pointles jobs like sales and marketing and either give them jobs in productive industry or share the work so we all do less work and have more free time to do what we want
At this point you can enstablish state capitalism and make your autism happy once and for all. If the have sales and marketing jobs, there's need for it.

[Anonymous No.20472103]

>>20470364
Marx was surpassed by Ellul.

[Anonymous No.20472110]

fuck unions, bring in the syndicates

[Anonymous No.20472114]

>>20472057
>minimum wage for example makes companies hire less people since workers are more expensive
That's based on some really flawed assumptions. Even granted that were true in the short run (debatable) there's no reason that's true in the long run, people get paid higher wages and are cheaper in real terms today. Hold one price fixed while everything else is free and things will adjust.

[Anonymous No.20472124]

>>20470751
You dumb fucking imbecile. Marxism has absolutely NOTHING to do with "taxation" because "taxation" is a LIBERAL policy.

There is no such thing as a marxist who believes they will destroy class barriers through taxation. You've been misinformed by neoliberals.

[Anonymous No.20472132]

>>20472103
>State-capitalism follows a set of instructions
Ellul adds some extra colors to the problem. Nothing more.

[Anonymous No.20472143]

>>20472124
Marx was a social democrat. He thought America/Switzerland could smoothly reform into socialism

[Anonymous No.20472160]

>>20472114
>companies wanting rising their standards for hirings because workers are expensive to maintain is a flawed assumption
Raise it about 50$ per hour and see if it's going to fix itself in the long run.

[Anonymous No.20472173]

>>20472160
Durrr. You're just describing hyperinflation at that point and workers aren't necessarily "expensive" in that situation, in real terms they can become cheaper. Germany recovered pretty quickly from it.

[Anonymous No.20472179]

>>20472132
It's not merely state capitalism, it's the idea of a technical state itself, which reflects the individual's purely material belief. Socialism or communism won't change anything.

[Anonymous No.20472182]

>>20471439
>do you enjoy weekends, sick leave, days off,
These are all copes. I don't enjoy any of these and I'm not being ironic. It's like Stalin's paraphrasing of Lenin, "Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs".
>muh weekends
Wow I have at best 30 hours of time after being imprisoned for an entire week. Oh wait. Saturday is spent being so tired and out of energy that I make up for the exhertion and sleep deprivation during the week so it's like 20 waking hours in a weekend or less. Sunday is cleaning and chores you couldnt do during the week so all work and no play still. Actually the existence and precedence for a weekend precedes unions because workers would be physically exhausted and collapse. Chattel slavery afforded more consecutive days off.
>sick leave
Limited in number and meaningless. I don't own the means of production and can't cash these days in. It's also self interested since the advent of Germ theory.
>days off
Biggest cope of all. I have a part 2 of my post for it that ill write later.

[Anonymous No.20472189]

>>20470889
Hasn't it already failed? How many of us grew up in poverty? Capitalism necessarily concentrates wealth in smaller and smaller groups over time... maybe it succeeded compared to communism but that's not saying much.

[Anonymous No.20472190]

>>20472173
>You're just describing hyperinflation at that point and workers aren't necessarily
The hell hyperinflation has to do with it.
>in real terms they can become cheaper
how exactly?

[Anonymous No.20472193]

>>20470364
>Why do people still take Marx's works seriously in academia and such?
they don't. what they take seriously from Marx is the parts that can be reappropriated to serve the left of capital in weakening independent worker movement and bolstering capitalism. the rest, i.e. the revolutionary core of his discoveries, is not taken seriously at all: it's either dismissed entirely or dismissed in content while retained formally as an aesthetic and empty catchwords.
>>20472143
no, he thought you could get communists to power democratically in countries where the proletariat has majority, which is a no-brainer. what he didn't think is that you could do this today when those kinds of countries are dominated by the middle class instead (and countries that do have a large proletariat are under imperialist domination of the former), or that once the proletariat is in power, there could be "smooth reform into socialism" ("the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." etc.)

[Anonymous No.20472197]

>>20472190
>The hell hyperinflation has to do with it.
If wage rates were being mandated up 50$ per hour you'd see
>how exactly?
Other prices going up faster so real wages are going down. It'd wipe out small actors but people who know how to profit in such situations would exploit it and win out

[Anonymous No.20472214]

>>20472182
huh?

[Anonymous No.20472225]

>>20472197
>but people who know how to profit in such situations would exploit it and win out
What's there to exploit?
You either hire less people or fire who's not essential, or raise the prices of your product because you want to maintain profitability, and like you said you're going to wipe out small actors and those starting their companies.

[Anonymous No.20472234]

>>20471898
>otherwise nonsensical
[Fails to elaborate]
>though
Brain dead redditor.
There is nothing about tax cuts that contradicts class struggle. It's materially self-interested for anyone whose pay check is affected by taxation. The conception of class struggle isn't a moralfaggot campaign. It's common sense; the have-nots will eventually want what the haves have and will fight them for it.
>government sending out checks
Didn't get any, and in any case, not enough to make any difference or offset the amount I donate to the state to begin with, from let alone alone to FICA taxes.
>Trump increased tariffs which are the most reactionary form of taxation in certain regards so if anything he made income distribution more regressive on that front alone.
Word salad of a sentence by a pseud who has no idea what he is talking about. Read this ten times and be embarked
>most reactionary form [how] in certain regards [what?] if anything he made income distribution more regressive [on that front - not needed, you didn't say any other front, and] 'alone' isn't necessary in addition to that]
Marxism isn't about "income distribution", as Marx correctly predicted that income distribution would be more skewed as society divides itself into two camps, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.20472249]

Marxism is the opium of the intellectuals

[Anonymous No.20472252]

>>20472182
>days off
These expire at the end of the year, cannot be cashed in, and are totally useless. Vacations are a waste of time and a scam so workers do not accumulate capital and blow it on stupid trips. Slaves were allowed to leave the plantation to visit other slaves on occasion. Same situation. It's also self-interested to offer them to some extent, so gullible idiots like the initial poster feel like they're getting something meanwhile nothing in their life changes and they do nothing.

[Anonymous No.20472269]

>>20472249
And their IQ is like the rate of profit, it keeps falling.

[Anonymous No.20472273]

>>20472143
Marx was a revolutionist whose entire materialist conception of the development of history with class struggle entirely contradicts the idea of social democracy or social progression through nicities. You're a pseud who went to college who has rich parents and needs to be put in a camp and forced to break rocks all day. I used to own nearly all 50 volumes of MECW and neither Marx or Engels were 'social democrats' and would have resented anyone like you. Anything they wrote about muh peace was done under duress because of censorship and fear of being jailed which is why Marx lived in exile most of his life.

[Anonymous No.20472374]

>>20472214
Cope.

[Anonymous No.20472449]

>>20470364
What's your point?

[Anonymous No.20472452]

>>20472249
>The arrogant, pontifical presumption of our so-called educated men seems to me a far greater obstacle. Admittedly we are still short of technicians, agronomists, engineers, chemists, architects, etc., but if the worst comes to the worst we can buy them, just as the capitalists do, and if a stern example is made of a traitor or two — of whom there will assuredly be some in such company — they will find it in their interest to cease robbing us. But apart from specialists like these, among whom I also count school-teachers, we shall manage very well without the rest of the “educated” men; e.g. the present heavy influx of literati and students into the party will be attended by all manner of mischief unless those gentry are kept within bounds.

[Anonymous No.20472523]

reminder that marx said all 20,000 pages could be summed up as "abolish all private property" so there's no point in believing this retard's ideas

[Anonymous No.20472594]

>>20471488
>I can't tell if you're a rightwinger or a utopian ultraleftist, but I am committed to discussing this in good faith.
Too bad, I've already marked you as an enemy you capitalist sell out

[Anonymous No.20472598]

>>20472523
muh toofbrush

[Anonymous No.20472620]

>>20471685
Communism works once the vanguard class looks around, purges the faggot intellectuals like the ones in this thread, purges/suppresses the bourgeois, and then finally becomes Red Monarchism after several generations (And that is a good thing, unironically fuck the middle class for causing capitalism and destroying monarchy in the first place).
t. Medievalist Catholic

[Anonymous No.20472643]

>>20472523
I'm no expert, but I think the vast majority of Marx's work was descriptive, so you really couldn't sum it up like that.

[Anonymous No.20472686]

To the Marxists faggots in this thread. What are some good books on the history of Marxist thought? Preferably with an unbiased look on it, if you faggots can fathom that somehow.

[Anonymous No.20472832]

>>20472620
The vanguard class are the faggot intellectuals.
Stupid schizophrenic poster

[Anonymous No.20472840]

>>20472686
David Harvey

[Anonymous No.20472873]

>>20471488
>unions scare the eltie
Hahaha, how nigga? The whole point of Marx's theory of revolution is to abolish wage labor, you dumb ass. Unions are reformist in nature, and don't actually challenge the system because it keeps the wage-worker relationship in check. You are exactly the same kind of people Marx hated.

[Anonymous No.20472900]

>>20471439
>Nah fuck off, do you enjoy weekends, sick leave, days off, not getting your hand ripped off at work?
Plenty of non-union jobs have these things, you fucking retard. You don't need unions any of these things. Its called a contract, retard.

[Anonymous No.20472909]

>>20472620
This has never worked - ever. Purging didn't stop capitalism from being restored in the USSR or China. People are not going to surrender making a profit or their property for the common good, retard. Its a hydra. You would need an ungodly amount of coercion to prevent these relations from forming again. And its so easy for you larp like this - you would have mostly been purged by these things.

[Anonymous No.20472926]

>>20471516
>I was raised Catholic and while a Marxist now
These are same thing. Marxism is Christian Millenarianism. You just changed cults because Marxism is more in vogue now and woke for generation of degenerates and misfits.

[Anonymous No.20472957]

>>20470364
They don't, really. What people perceive as "marxism" is just a vague sentiment of the hermeneutics of suspicion. Orthodox marxists practically don't exist since the 50s. People only use marxist theory as a deracinated bludgeon to attack people they instinctively feel repulsed by, in other words, the badthinkers.

[Anonymous No.20472966]

>>20472957
> vague sentiment of the hermeneutics of suspicion
Books for this feel

[Anonymous No.20472979]

>>20472234
>There is nothing about tax cuts that contradicts class struggle. It's materially self-interested for anyone whose pay check is affected by taxation.
Yes there is. If you don't understand why making taxation less progressive and increasing the relative burden on lower incomes is not an issue of class than you're retarded.

>Word salad of a sentence by a pseud who has no idea what he is talking about.
It's not. Lowering any form of taxes but offsetting it with more tariffs hurt the lowest income earners. Someone earning $200,000 getting a tax break but increasing the costs of imports is totally a logical concept that can be analyzed.

>Marxism isn't about "income distribution", as Marx correctly predicted that income distribution would be more skewed as society divides itself into two camps, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
You're getting the normative and positive aspects confused. Marx had theories on the nature of pure liberalism. Income distribution and price setting is what liberalism is all about but he obviously advocated for social regulations within the existing context still.

>>20472686
The history of "Marxist thought" is very broad since you could mean Western Marxism or the official theories of state socialism under Stalin or Mao.

>>20472873
Unions, legislation, etc were just tools not end goals. Wage labour being totally abolished was a goal but how you get there is potentially different.

>>20472900
Obviously individual or collective bargaining results in different outcomes. Individual bargaining makes sense for highly skilled non-competitive fields but otherwise it's obvious who's always going to have an upper hand.

[Anonymous No.20472981]

>>20472966
Paul Ricoeur and Augusto del Noce.

[Anonymous No.20472993]

>>20472979
>The history of "Marxist thought" is very broad since you could mean Western Marxism or the official theories of state socialism under Stalin or Mao.
Western Marxism in the 20th century, please.

[Anonymous No.20472999]

>>20470364
>he thinks the natural price of commodities isn't proportional to socially necessary labor time required for their production
lmao libtard. What anti-marxist bros want to say is that it's giant coincidence that labor times are proportional to market prices.

[Anonymous No.20473013]

>>20472979
>Unions, legislation, etc were just tools not end goals. Wage labour being totally abolished was a goal but how you get there is potentially different.
Uh, hello - retard. Its been 200 years since unions. Don'tcha think you should stop acting as if you're revolutionary? You can't defend unions, and then act like you're against capitalism. You're a liberal pushing petite-bourgeois politics because you fear proliterianization. Unions are not anti-capitalism; they are perfectly compatible with capitalism. They are the status quo. You are literally a labor aristocrat; not a communist nor or a friend of the working class. You are an enemy.

[Anonymous No.20473029]

>>20472686
there aren't. you need to start with Marx and Engels, perhaps with part III of Anti-Dühring. or if you're fine with being fed bullshit by some academic fraudster then get whatever comes up as first on google, it doesn't matter
>>20472909
capitalism was never gone from the USSR or China. a state dedicated to rapidly developing industrial capitalism in order to catch up with the West is not socialism but an immediate stage between germinating capitalism and developed capitalism.
>>20472966
suicide manual
>>20472979
>If you don't understand why making taxation less progressive and increasing the relative burden on lower incomes is not an issue of class than you're retarded.
it's sure an issue of class: the middle class. Engels:
>“Taxes!” A matter that interests the bourgeoisie very much but the worker only very little. What the worker pays in taxes goes in the long run into the cost of production of labour power and must therefore be compensated for by the capitalist. All these things which are held up to us here as highly important questions for the working class are in reality of essential interest only to the bourgeois, and still more so to the petty bourgeois; and, despite Proudhon, we maintain that the working class is not called upon to safeguard the interests of these classes.

[Anonymous No.20473076]

>>20473029
>capitalism was never gone from the USSR or China.
None of those countries achieved communism - communism is the abolition of wage labor. So is socialism. Both of those countries maintained it. Defending the USSR/China doesn't make you "communist" - it makes you a liberal. You even admit it when you say retarded shit like "developing industrial capitalism." You can't say these countries were communist while then saying they were "developing capitalism" , retard. You tankies are so dumb. You've never read Marx.

[Anonymous No.20473078]

>>20472993
Considerations on Western Marxism by Perry Anderson

>>20473013
I never did someone else ITT did but the point is you're confused on what "being against capitalism" is if you think it's only the abolition of all forms of it immediatly since that has no relevance at all in past history and as such there'd be no history of anti-capitalism even including Marx who was for regulating the work day, etc

[Anonymous No.20473093]

>>20472832
>The vanguard class are the faggot intellectuals
Never truer has a commie been

[Anonymous No.20473110]

>>20473076
Literally every theory of socialism involves waged labor existing and developing the possibility of communism. Marx went pretty far in thinking along those lines
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm

[Anonymous No.20473123]

>>20473078
The point is you're a liberal pretending to be a communist. Its been 200 years. Promoting unions to solve capitalism isn't a solution anymore; especially now. You're not anti-capitalist because your beliefs still maintain bourgeois ownership of the means of production. You never read Marx.
>including Marx who was for regulating the work day, etc
Lmao, you fucking retard, Marx did that while having a communist party that advocated for revolution and proletarian ownership of the means of production. You're not doing that. You're pushing anarchoid sloganeering - as if unions are enough. And you're so stupid - you're taking Marx's out of context, and retardly assuming his demands 200+ years ago apply today when they do not. Marx would not be supporting unions today since are not doing anything to change the current state of things. You are a white liberal, not a communist, pushing reformism and pretending you're a communist.

[Anonymous No.20473131]

>>20473093
We’re not all Marxist or Marxist-Leninists

[Anonymous No.20473134]

>>20473110
>Literally every theory of socialism involves waged labor existing
No, Marx explicitly rejected this.
>All these “socialists” since Colins have this much in common that they leave wage labour and therefore capitalist production in existence and try to bamboozle themselves or the world into believing that if ground rent were transformed into a state tax all the evils of capitalist production would disappear of themselves. The whole thing is therefore simply an attempt, decked out with socialism, to save capitalist domination and indeed to establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one.
Actually read Marx, retard. You never have. He literally mocks your argument as maintaining capitalism. You defend wage labor; you're a capitalist according to Marx. You are not a socialist. Never will be.

[Anonymous No.20473146]

>>20473110
>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm
This more proof tankies have never read Marx. Literally citing a page you didn't read, and has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Why do you larpers try so hard to pretend you're Marxists when its so easy to expose you - see >>20473134

[Anonymous No.20473170]

>>20470364
Marx was okay-ish.
Russians however will ruin anything.

[Anonymous No.20473175]

>>20473123
>The point is you're a liberal pretending to be a communist.
I never did, other guy before me probably did but I was just clarifying a point. A liberal would support stuff like UBI as a "solution" to "modern problems"

>Its been 200 years. Promoting unions to solve capitalism isn't a solution anymore; especially now.
I agree. Trade unionism is a form of syndicalism and their not going to support communism or anything beyond higher nominal wages for themselves. That doesn't mean trade unionism is bad per se but limited

>Marx did that while having a communist party that advocated for revolution and proletarian ownership of the means of production
Marx political involvement later in life was as a member of the first international which wasn't a "communist party" but included anarchists and other tendencies FYI. He support the Paris commune as some sort of positive development and if you know what the commune was it wasn't about taking over the means of production.

>>20473134
>>20473146
If you don't notice he obviously understood socialism as the abolition of certain conditions of capitalism without the total transcendence of other features which would result in full communism. The problem is trying to work out what he thought a socialist mode of production would actually be.

[Anonymous No.20473177]

>>20473076
get your eyes checked
>>20473110
>involves waged labor existing and developing the possibility of communism
lol that's just called capitalism
>Marx went pretty far in thinking along those lines
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm
he isn't talking about socialism but about developments within capitalism:
>This is the abolition of the capitalist mode of production ___within the capitalist mode of production itself___... It establishes a monopoly in certain spheres and thereby requires state interference. It reproduces a new financial aristocracy, a new variety of parasites in the shape of promoters, speculators and simply nominal directors; a whole system of swindling and cheating by means of corporation promotion, stock issuance, and stock speculation. ___It is private production___ without the control of private property.
the levels of illiteracy here are ironic given that this is supposed to be a literature board.
either that or you're one of those pathetic morons who began their process of thinking with the conclusion that the epic USSR must've been socialist, and as a result they have no choice but to give up all human dignity and tell themselves that when Marx talks about "private production" "within the capitalist mode of production" he surely must be talking about socialism.

[Anonymous No.20473196]

>>20473175
>Marx political involvement later in life was as a member of the first international which wasn't a "communist party" but included anarchists and other tendencies FYI.
it was a communist party, that's why people who tried to push anti-communist position such as the rejection of political struggle like the anarchists got kicked out
>He support the Paris commune as some sort of positive development and if you know what the commune was it wasn't about taking over the means of production.
Marx:
>Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few. It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators. It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor.

[Anonymous No.20473213]

>>20472249
Marxism is pretty degenerate these days. Modern Marxists are just petite bourgeois radicals. They've never read Hegel. They've never read Marx. They just larp and valorize the aesthetics of dead countries and movements. They don't even understand communism. They embed it with their identity politic non-sense, and degenerate the communist programme with liberal demands like "higher wages" instead of the abolition of the proletariat as a class. Its not going to be fixed any time soon. There are actual Marxists on /lit/. None of the "communists" in this thread have demonstrated their understanding of theory or reality.
>>20473196
Just stop talking to this fucking larper. He's the typical ML who hasn't read theory and never will because his whole ideology is an aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.20473228]

>>20473177
If you want to get bogged down in linguistics it's not worth the time but obviously socialism is farther from communism than from capitalism. Waged labour was not to be abolished during the Paris commune and politicians just cut down a notch yet Marx praised it.

>>20473196
Calling the first international a "communist party" is extremely deceptive. Would you consider the second international one as well? Also besides Marx's spin on the Paris commune it was not a communist venture and most involved were closer to Proudhonists than Marxists.

[Anonymous No.20473278]

>>20472643
he said that himself, did you even read my post

[Anonymous No.20473463]

>>20473228
>If you want to get bogged down in linguistics it's not worth the time
I don't, I'm only interested in not calling capitalist production socialist
>but obviously socialism is farther from communism than from capitalism.
how's that obvious? if anything's obvious, then it's that it's half way between them
>Waged labour was not to be abolished during the Paris commune and politicians just cut down a notch yet Marx praised it.
it was to be abolished
>Would you consider the second international one as well?
yes
>it was not a communist venture
it was, it was literally a proletarian uprising
>and most involved were closer to Proudhonists than Marxists
so what? their particular mistaken doctrines don't matter much in the face of reality (aka facts don't care about your feelings):
>Naturally, the Proudhonists were chiefly responsible for the economic decrees of the Commune, both for their praiseworthy and their unpraiseworthy aspects; as the Blanquists were for its political actions and omissions. And in both cases the irony of history willed – as is usual when doctrinaires come to the helm – that both did the opposite of what the doctrines of their school proscribed.
had the Commune persisted for longer, it would've naturally taken a direction that accords with a Marxist understanding, and all the Blanquist and Proudhonism would've disappeared from its vanguard in favour of Marxism.

[Anonymous No.20473472]

>>20473228
You are a wannabe leftyfag. Without the internet people didn't even acknowledge dweebs like you. Go back to playing steam games and larping on discord like a good NPC internet addicted fag

[Anonymous No.20473478]

>>20472179
It’s true that Marxian/Bolshevism state capitalist systems don’t acknowledge the dangers, but there is scant attention to the Bakunin argument, the whole other traditional socialism that the aforementioned state socialists actively try to eradicate. This school of thought is quite often aware of the dead-end of the technological creep into our lives. Bookchin, Cammette, Zerzan, Perlman, Kaczynski etc.
We know what freedom we want better for their parts and Ellul’s. Sorry to have come off as so dismissive.

[Anonymous No.20473514]

>>20471415
Russians are subhumans regardless of who or what rules them

[Anonymous No.20473530]

>>20471415
“Civilized” is a dirty word.
This is why they produced nothing culturally after the (counter)revolution

>>20473514
Hello Biden bro. How’s your bowl of turds today?

[Anonymous No.20473657]

>>20473463
>it was to be abolished
It absolutely was not. The wages of public servants were to be reduced to normal workmans.
>yes
Which would be an absurd claim and why the the third was created by Lenin and the old parties not invited.
>it was, it was literally a proletarian uprising
It was socialist in nature but not communist.

[Anonymous No.20473867]

>>20472643
>the vast majority of Marx's work was descriptive
But that doesn't fit our narrative in demonizing Marx, so we're just going to ignore that

[Anonymous No.20473969]

>>20473657
>The wages of public servants were to be reduced to normal workmans.
that was an immediate measure which in no way contradicts the fact that wage labour was to be abolished in the future, because that's what proletarian dictatorship is necessarily driven towards as proletarian dictatorship
>Which would be an absurd claim and why the the third was created by Lenin and the old parties not invited.
so first you don't understand that "wage labour is to be abolished" doesn't mean that it is to be abolished immediately, and now you don't understand that a party being communist at one point in time doesn't by the power of magic and friendship preclude it from ever degenerating into anti-communist. do you have problems with understanding the concept of the passage of time?
>It was socialist in nature but not communist.
communism is the class movement of the proletariat as a whole. the Commune, being the most advanced practical expression of that movement at the time, was squarely communist.

[Anonymous No.20474056]

>>20473472
So I am the guy who did most of the big union defending stuff (weekends, holidays) etc. a fair way up the thread, then went to bed. In my absence it seems that a tangle of ultraleftists have crawled out of the woodwork. It seems I have been mischaracterised as seeing unions as necessary and sufficient; no! they are necessary but NOT sufficient for revolutionary action, of course they are an intermediate point in the development of the class struggle and not its end. You're absolutely right to fucking hate having your life measured by the boss and choked by the wage system, but it's not the fault of unions that this is the case, and it would be worse without them. To play ultraradical word-games beyond this is either SEP Trot bullshit or Aimee-Therese "so Left I support the GOP" bullshit.

If we're at the point of quoting scripture, have some Lenin. Here he's not even arguing about the value of left trade unions, but actively defending the minimal value of even the yellow unions.
>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch06.htm
>Should Revolutionaries work in Reactionary Trade Unions?
>The German “Lefts” consider that, as far as they are concerned, the reply to this question is an unqualified negative. In their opinion, declamations and angry outcries against “reactionary” and “counter-revolutionary” trade unions are sufficient “proof” that it is unnecessary and even inexcusable for revolutionaries and Communists to work in yellow, social-chauvinist, compromising and counter-revolutionary trade unions of the Legien type.
>Capitalism inevitably leaves socialism the legacy, on the one hand, of the old trade and craft distinctions among the workers, distinctions evolved in the course of centuries; on the other hand, trade unions, which only very slowly, in the course of years and years, can and will develop into broader industrial unions with less of the craft union about them (embracing entire industries, and not only crafts, trades and occupations), and later proceed, through these industrial unions, to eliminate the division of labour among people, to educate and school people, give them all-round development and an all-round training, so that they are able to do everything.
>We can (and must) begin to build socialism, not with abstract human material, or with human material specially prepared by us, but with the human material bequeathed to us by capitalism.
>When the revolutionary party of the proletariat, the highest form of proletarian class organisation, began to take shape... the trade unions inevitably began to reveal certain reactionary features, a certain craft narrow-mindedness, a certain tendency to be non-political, a certain inertness, etc. However, the development of the proletariat did not, and could not, proceed anywhere in the world otherwise than through the trade unions, through reciprocal action between them and the party of the working class.

[Anonymous No.20474138]

>>20473029
You know, Duhring never got his just due, one of my pals is planning on translating his work

[Anonymous No.20474194]

I still have not seen any single good reason as to why I should believe Marxism to be an accurate representation of the real world. Every time the answer is something like "You should read this obscure theorist who explain why our predictions that always fail will actually totally be correct this time around"

[Anonymous No.20474217]

>>20472909
>Purging didn't stop capitalism from being restored in the USSR or China. People are not going to surrender making a profit or their property for the common good, retard. Its a hydra.
That's fine, Communism is based because it will always evolve into Monarchism over several centuries in the same way the Roman Republic's titles turned into the ultimate symbols of Monarchy
I don't care if they can't defeat capitalism, but I do care that they chain it and prevent the degenerate laissez faire democracy from ever being a thing again
>>20473131
>>20473093
>>20472832
Look at all these liberals, classical conservatives and social democrats shriek at the truth - they are both afraid

[Anonymous No.20474219]

>>20474138
lol who cares about duhring besides morons in academia looking for novel subjects to exploit so they can keep living from bourgeois gibs
>>20474194
keep refusing to read their actual works then, I'm sure that'll change your predicament

[Anonymous No.20474220]

>>20470891
Why are reactionaries so retarded?
>BRO I LOVE MARXIST ECONOMICS AND UHH IT MAKES SENSE BUT THEY'RE MATERIALISTS!!!

Plenty of third world marxists are religious.

[Anonymous No.20474224]

Nobody in academia except literal whos in lit theory departments worship Marx. You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.20474237]

>>20470364
what kind of people do you think will be produced from a violent, bloody revolution?
>english revolution
>french revolution
??????????

[Anonymous No.20474250]

>>20474220
>Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule... Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

[Anonymous No.20474326]

Vast majority of academia thinks Marx was the Cambodian guy that killed all of the sparrows during the October Revolution. The tiny minority left over aren't much better either.

[Anonymous No.20474393]

>>20474326
retard

[Anonymous No.20474405]

>>20474326
I'd say German and Dutch academics are the only ones that aren't complete drooling pseuds when it comes to him.
>>20474393
Lol

[Anonymous No.20474407]

>>20470364
containment for leftists retards as long as they can publish some microwaved Marxism they won't do anything important in real life

[Anonymous No.20474423]

>>20474220
>Plenty of third world marxists are religious.
Plenty of them are trannies too, but that doesn't mean they're real women.

[Anonymous No.20474466]

>>20470364
Because he's one of the most influential philosophers in history and even if you disagree with him it's important to understand his works.
Americans are unfortunately too brainwashed by cold war propaganda and a worship for capitalism that prevents any sort of rational discussion about it, they treat their economic system like some sort of mystic deity and any critique of it is a personal and national attack.

[Anonymous No.20474468]

>>20474220
You're even more retarded. They are not real Marxists.

[Anonymous No.20474479]

>>20471488
You're the utopian with your idealist and moralistic drivel.

[Anonymous No.20474500]

>>20474479
have you considered this daring counterpoint to your thesis: no u

[Anonymous No.20474513]

>>20474500
Except it isn't. The people criticizing unions aren't framing their argument like it's a marvel movies.

[Anonymous No.20474533]

>>20471071
>>20471156
Yes.
Costs is WHY enterprises go bankrupt or fail. Price might be arbitrary, but costs means bankruptcy is bankruptcy.
And since that can't be argued over, you can't argue with Marx axioms.

You can tell a argument is flawed when it refuses to attack the foundation of the house of cards its aimed at, but instead will try to argue in some wiggle room about the support being made out of card board boxes.
There are flaws in Theory of Value, but there are Truths in Theory of Value that go so deep they explain how strife and looting happens without needing much context.

[Anonymous No.20474536]

>>20474500
You got exposed for being a fraud dude. Unions are not anti-capitalist. They just create a labor aristocracy that maintains the system. Its AFL-CIO that stops general strikes from happening, but retards like you want them to have more power.

[Anonymous No.20474552]

>>20471427

[Anonymous No.20474624]

>>20470364
Why is every Marxist group i approach full of trannies? Both in real life and online

[Anonymous No.20474632]

>>20474624
Marxism is envy and resentment towards society by social rejects. Trannies tend to be unemployed, rejected by society for being disgusting, and Marxists love grooming people with victimization politics for party dues - its a perfect fit.

[Anonymous No.20474637]

>>20471289
>>20470428
>>20470364
Sociology is a joke largely because humanism and marxism are taken seriously

[Anonymous No.20474663]

>>20470889
based alternative investor

[Anonymous No.20474684]

>>20470364

[Anonymous No.20474905]

>>20474684
>reservations are ethnostates
>casinos print money
>never invest in their own people
>people go extinct anyway

[Anonymous No.20474954]

>>20474684
>>20474905
>schizochuds have found each other

[Anonymous No.20474987]

>>20470364
Marxism reminds me of homeopathy, humorism, that very specific breed of racialism, and those other 19th century fads. It really didn't deserve to survive this long in ANY form.

As for why academics still worship the guy, I don't know I'm an engineer

[Anonymous No.20475005]

>>20474684
>The response should be
But I thought you were against nationalism, boil soil and ethnic supremacy?

[Anonymous No.20475029]

>>20474954
Lol have you ever met a communist? All of them are anti-American and basically support ethnic supremacy for native tribes

[Anonymous No.20475043]

>>20475029
Yeah, leftists typically are very vocal about hating white people. They blame whitey for everything while defending the criminal actions of non-whites.

[Anonymous No.20475059]

>>20474684
Marxism and historical materialism can be summarized that might makes right. There is no moral conundrum here. Engel was even more extreme and openly advocated for a protoleibenstraum by socialist and capitalist states to those stuck in inferior modes of development. Cope and seethe. Whoever made this meme is troubled by moral conundrums and appeals to hypocrisy. Marx wasn't in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.20475065]

>>20475043
Marx was a darwinist and overt racist.

[Anonymous No.20475071]

>>20474624
They are infiltrated by agents of capitalist states and subverted. The people Marxism-Leninism would actually appeal to are rural poorfag trump voters. They can't have these people hating city slickers and rich people because they're the only ones with revolutionary potential.

[Anonymous No.20475092]

>>20475065
Marx was a Jew, and Marxists want to kill you for being white.
>>20475071
lol this pure cope. East Germany had state mandate gay clubs, faggot. Communism has always push faggotry because they are against religion. They replace religion with that degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.20475115]

Congrats guys, this was a good thread with lots of different discussion and now it's just /pol/shit. You did it reddit! You ruined it!

[Anonymous No.20475323]

Reminder that Marx's predictions of Communism/Socialism did NOT call for change to these systems at the time he was writing. He acknowledged that industrialisation and capitalism can produce great growth in societies, not only economic but technological and in standards of living, etc. But what he recognized was the growing disparity in classes would only continue to be exacerbated and grow unsustainably large, with the lower classes unable to keep up with the market prices and steadily driven out of basic commodities (this is what we are on the cusp of now).
From this, Marx predicted the shift from capitalist systems to communist ones as a NECESSARY and INEVITABLE occurance to provide for the majority of people in any given society. He never thought nor claimed that Communism could be enacted, in fact such premature realisations of Communism would be doomed to fail - this is what we've seen time and time again. A society needs to reach a certain critical mass of growth and wealth before it is capable of sustaining the Communist model.
The problem is that intellectuals in Russia (and probably everywhere else Commushitters committed mass genocide) were fed up with the current social and economic inequalities and couldn't swallow the fact that they were powerless to just wait for Communism to realise itself. Instead, they created revolutions and tried to bring it about long before their (or any) society was capable of supporting the system - thus we get corruption, resource shortages, inequality, imperialism, etc. etc.
TL;DR: Marx unironically still has not been proven wrong, yet anyone who identifies as a Communist and wants to make it happen in the here and now is delusional. According to Marx it will happen and we are powerless to avoid or hasten its eventuality.

[Anonymous No.20475407]

>>20475092
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.20475455]

>>20470364
They aren't taken that seriously, "Marxism" today is either a theory of ethnic vengeance invoked by members of formerly-colonized groups or is espoused by moralistic old fogeys who no one listens to anyway. Most members of these groups cannot do math as needed for an econ PhD so they don't even know what happens in Economics.

[Anonymous No.20475472]

>>20475059
>Marxism and historical materialism can be summarized that might makes right.
So you're admitting it's retarded then?

[Anonymous No.20475528]

>>20475092
Religion entitles homosexuals to having immortal souls and rights to personhood. Materialism doesn't. Real atheist states like Hoxha's Albania mandated their imprisonment or execution. All protections and rights afforded to them are remnants of Christianity, secular humanism, which is idealist and not Marxist. Honecker was a revisionist.

[Anonymous No.20475555]

>>20475472
Midwit argument because retards and geniuses are on the same page.

[Anonymous No.20475586]

The real answer is: it gives them something to do. That’s it.

[Anonymous No.20475597]

>>20475528
>Materialism doesn't
Hahahaha. Materialism allows homosexuals their personhood. It’s trans they don’t actually acknowledge as a reality.
>Some state had the heebie-jeebies over buttsex
So what?

[Anonymous No.20475600]

>>20475597
>Materialism allows homosexuals their personhood.
Wrong. No soul. No problem. No problem with euthanizing a defect that's of net harm to themselves and the world.

[Anonymous No.20475852]

>>20471119
you really changed the url with the word fallacy instead of hypothesis lol

[Anonymous No.20475976]

>>20475600
>defect
Schizo, please. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.20476041]

>>20474533
>GOD is WHY enterprises go bankrupt or fail. Price might be arbitrary, but GOD means bankruptcy is bankruptcy.
You calculate some mythical shit using completely arbitrary methods upon a highly speculative object.
There ain't any fucking reason why ONLY labor would matter in cost calculation. Therefore, ANYTHING potentially can matter in that calculation. How much would, then, labor be a part of the cost? 1%? 99%? Moving in-between?
Do you not see the problem already?

>You can tell a argument is flawed when
https://aeon.co/essays/how-economists-rode-maths-to-become-our-era-s-astrologers
when you deal with astrology. It's complex, but completely retarded.

"In fact, when Adams was arrested in 1914 for violating a New York law against astrology, it was mathematics that eventually exonerated her. During the trial, her lawyer Clark L Jordan emphasised mathematics in order to distinguish his client’s practice from superstition, calling astrology ‘a mathematical or exact science’. Adams herself demonstrated this ‘scientific’ method by reading the astrological chart of the judge’s son. The judge was impressed: the plaintiff, he observed, went through a ‘mathematical process to get at her conclusions… I am satisfied that the element of fraud… is absent here.’"

[Anonymous No.20476403]

>>20475059
Okay, if might makes right then why don’t leftists celebrate the superior industrialized United States for defeating the primitive natives?

[Anonymous No.20476411]

>>20470364
>Why do people still take Marx's works seriously in academia and such?
To answer this question seriously, because the cracks in liberalism as a political and economic system are growing increasingly apparent. Marx was the philosopher whose critique of liberalism and whose predictions about the ultimate future of capitalism most closely match the post-globalization world, and so Marx is who anyone with two brain cells to rub together inevitably returns to. The present crisis is probably best explained (somewhat unwittingly) by the reformist liberal political economist Branco Milanovic:
(Lecture covering same beats as his most major paper
https://youtube.com/watch?v=SMsirg7Z0bU))
(Slides from a more recent lecture
https://www.lse.ac.uk/Events/Events-Assets/PDF/2017/2017-ST02/20170705-Branko-Milanovic-PPT.pdf))
for over a century, capitalism and imperialism produced a world in which where you were born had a much greater effect on your eventual wealth than which class you were a member of. But in the last few decades, countries have begun converging faster and faster. At the same time, global household inequality, something we have only been able to measure since the 1980s, has been consistently high and slightly growing in the wealthier countries that the rest of the world is trying to catch up to and is being molded to resemble. In a few more decades it seems as though we will return to a Marxian world. Milanovic, being a world bank economist and too pot committed to liberalism to abandon it, suggests a bunch of totally pie in the sky anemic reforms as a solution. But other academics are bolder. Eric Hobsbawm, the eminent European historian, put it very plainly in the conclusion to his book-length reflection on Marx and Marxism:
>It is evident that even between major crises, ‘the market’ has no answer to the major problem confronting the twenty-first century: that unlimited and increasingly high-tech economic growth in the pursuit of unsustainable profit produces global wealth, but at the cost of an increasingly dispensable factor of production, human labour, and, one might add, of the globe’s natural resources. Economic and political liberalism, singly or in combination, cannot provide the solution to the problems of the twenty-first century. Once again the time has come to take Marx seriously.

[Anonymous No.20476443]

>>20476411
>whose predictions about the ultimate future of capitalism most closely match the post-globalization world
lol

[Anonymous No.20476480]

>>20476443
>ctrl + f arguments
>no results

[Anonymous No.20476518]

>>20470364
Marxist general interpretation of capitalism and society as a playfield of material powers has fundamentally shaped modern understanding of the world. His analysis, even if arriving at wrong conclusions or no longer being accurate in some cases or to some degrees, is a fruitful, mind expanding subject to engage with. Nobody who takes the time to study Das Kapital thoroughly and comprehensively will regret it, because it is the work of a genius. This does not in any way mean that you will become a marxist after reading it but as a basket of rich, accurate and fascinating ideas it has maintained its value to this day.
As somebody who went to the universities you warned about, having spent my neet years studying Marx, i must tell you that the professors and the students i engaged with, were literal retards who had a much more basic, memetic knowledge of Marx than me.
I was unlucky perhaps but my observations lead me towards the conclusion that most so-called contemporary "Marxists" have read very little Marx, and adhere to mutations of mutations of a limited array of ideas present in his work, while ignorant of its substance.

[Anonymous No.20476527]

>>20476403
It's not about celebration. It was eventually inevitable that the American natives were conquered by a more technologically advanced society interested in expansion. It is also eventually inevitable that the consequences of this expansion will put a lot of strain on this society in the long run. Nobody "must" give land back to the natives, tho.

[Anonymous No.20476535]

>>20476411
>Marx was the philosopher whose critique of liberalism and whose predictions about the ultimate future of capitalism most closely match
I'd put it this way:
Liberals: "The Earth is flat!"
Marx: "Noooo, the Earth is a sphere!!! The Sun revovles around it!!!"

Obviously, Marx is closer-ish to the truth, but there are nuances.

[Anonymous No.20476568]

>>20476518
>Marxists" have read very little Marx, and adhere to mutations of mutations of a limited array of ideas present in his work, while ignorant of its substance.
You are correct on this, Marx has a very famous name but unfortunately is a very poorly understood thinker.

[Anonymous No.20476617]

>>20475323
>The problem is that intellectuals in Russia (and probably everywhere else Commushitters committed mass genocide) were fed up with the current social and economic inequalities and couldn't swallow the fact that they were powerless to just wait for Communism to realise itself. Instead, they created revolutions and tried to bring it about long before their (or any) society was capable of supporting the system
that's utterly retarded. first, communism doesn't just magically "realize itself", it need political action of the proletariat under the direction of the communist party. second, the revolutions you're talking about were either half-bourgeois (Russia) or entirely bourgeois (everywhere else). nobody tried to bring communism about before it was possible. the Bolsheviks aimed at holding onto power and working for the revolution in the West, not sudokuing themselves by introducing communism in Russia by decree. Lenin:
>What is to be done? One way is to try to prohibit entirely, to put the lock on all development of private, non-state exchange, i.e., trade, i.e., capitalism, which is inevitable with millions of small producers. But such a policy would be foolish and suicidal for the party that tried to apply it. […] The alternative (and this is the only sensible and the last possible policy) is not to try to prohibit or put the lock on the development of capitalism, but to channel it into state capitalism.
And the revolutionaries in other countries were building regular bourgeois states, without any connection to the proletarian revolution, only adopting communist pretense due to their particular geopolitical situation (alignment with the USSR) and for purposes of duping their proletariat into acquiescing to brutal exploitation (it's easier to sell it when you tell them they're working for socialism).

[Anonymous No.20476705]

>>20476041
See? You are having trouble reading my post, and attacking the core argument presented
Look at this bullshit, with buzzwords like
>mythical
>arbitrary
>speculative
>ANYTHING
That ain't grabbing the bull by the horns, son.


Marx arugment is very simple: If you can't bring food to the table, you need to do something else. Its so simple that it can be applied to animal hunting grounds and evolution theory, and it can then be applied to all stages of human society.
And as civilization is built, suddenly there is entire groups of people that is segregated from the basic needs to survive due wealth. So: Once you apply Mazlows pyramid to it, you can even define why turf wars, wars, conquest, feudalism, and a whole lot of other historical events and structures keeps happening.

And its still relevant for todays society.
What happens when the government pays out a massive dole due covid19 lockdown, skilled employees get furlonged left and right? The skilled employees are not fine with the dole, so they look for better jobs, or similar paying jobs that involves less commute or better work conditions. The low payed workers however get a chance to NOT work while doing online classes, or network trying to find better employment. As a result people refuse to touch the lowest paying jobs, and wages go up in order to attract people.
From the low paying Enterprise POV such events is really whatever, because the margins where good in the first place, and most shops have been operating long enough. From the mid skilled enterprise range, this leads to massive labor shortages as investing into employee training isn't a part of western work culture.

[Anonymous No.20476784]

>>20476705
>Marx arugment is very simple: If you can't bring food to the table, you need to do something else
That's literally a buzz-phrase.

>suddenly there is entire groups of people that is segregated from the basic needs to survive due wealth
Define "basic needs" and "wealth" in an objectively-measurable way. Otherwise, they shall occupy the same niche as gods. Pure political theology.

>Once you apply Mazlows pyramid to it, you can even define why turf wars, wars, conquest, feudalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalist–substantivist_debate#The_substantivist_position

>What happens when the government pays out
Requires as a premise a very specific configuration of money usage conventions. Change the conventions, and Marx gets flushed down the toilet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_anthropology#Special_and_general_purpose_of_money

[Anonymous No.20476860]

>>20476784
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods

[Anonymous No.20476931]

>>20471488
>Building strong unions is the only option we've got for fighting the elite's work to build soulless capitalism

[Anonymous No.20476933]

>>20476705
>That ain't grabbing the bull by the horns, son.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exformation
It is. We're always dealing with uncertainty as a factor. Things, like, say, "value" or "needs" are akin to things like, say, "emptiness", "void" or "a hole". They are defined by what they are *not*.

Like when you sees a face-resembling cloud in sky, you actually deal with your spatial position and your eye biology.

All social factors are "virtual reality" factors. The Sun doesn't move from East to West, because it is the Earth that does the moving. But *as long as* you are on Earth, it mostly does help to think it that way in your average everyday scenarios. Change anything here, and your neat little system crumbles down.

There is no "wealth", no "jobs" and no "money", except as fiction. But being fictional, they literally are akin to gods.

[Anonymous No.20477078]

>>20476931
teacher is a middle class profession. what's going to be your next example? unions of google engineers making $150k a year?

[Anonymous No.20477398]

>>20477078
No it isn’t. You from Europe or something?

[Anonymous No.20477409]

>>20470891
>I would be fine with Marx if he just embraced moral objectivity and God, but the communist cannot help himself
Exactly. Marx should have just left religion alone. Communism would be much more attractive to working people if atheism wasn't baked into it from the start. Maybe there's even a bit of divine intervention in all of this. If Russian communists hadn't persecuted clergy and faithful so viciously in the name of "muh atheeeism" maybe the USSR would still be around today, and with western-level living standards.

[Anonymous No.20477415]

>>20471433
>A free-market dictatorship is still superior in material prosperity and personal security than a democratically-elected socialism
So 1970s-1980s Chile had more prosperity and person security than 1970-1980s Norway or Sweden? Duly noted. /s

[Anonymous No.20477420]

>>20471864
>Cultural Marxism
Is not Marxism. It's a degenerate bourgeoisie concept. Marx wouldn't even recognize it.

[Anonymous No.20477497]

>>20477420
>Is not Marxism.
It is Marxism, when one realized that Marx's economy theory is too reductive.

>Marx wouldn't even recognize it.
See, that's the key point. To you, Marx is a Talmud. He is not to be objected in any way, his word is the Law. Every deviation from that is heresy.
While to the smart people, Marx (at best) is a chunk of code to re-utilize and refactor.

[Anonymous No.20477511]

>>20477409
>if atheism wasn't baked into it from the start
>Maybe there's even a bit of divine intervention in all of this.
>>20471101
>marxism a cargo cult of a death cult.

[Anonymous No.20477611]

>>20477398
yes it is. and I don't know why you would single out Europe, when US teachers are above Norway, the UK or Italy when it comes to the relation of their salary to GDP PPP.
>>20477409
>Communism would be much more attractive to working people if atheism wasn't baked into it from the start.
the ruling ideology is the ideology of the ruling class. communism would be the most immediately attractive to working people if it was a carbon copy of the ruling ideology. but that's not the point, is it?
>Maybe there's even a bit of divine intervention in all of this.
I personally think it was Santa Claus
>maybe the USSR would still be around today, and with western-level living standards.
you think the goal of communism is to have successful capitalist states except with red flags? seriously, what do you think communism is?
>>20477497
>It is Marxism, when one realized that Marx's economy theory is too reductive.
Marx-ism is when you reject the fundamental theses of Karl Marx
>To you, Marx is a Talmud. He is not to be objected in any way
you can object to him all you want. the point is that if you reject the fundamentals of what he said and affirm their opposite, it's no longer Marx-ism
>his word is the Law
as far as Marx-ism is concerned, yes. what else would define Marxism if not the claims that Marx has put forward?

[Anonymous No.20477675]

>>20477611
>Marx-ism is when you reject the fundamental theses of Karl Marx
Newtonism is when you reject the fundamental theses of Isaac Newton.
Darwinism is when you reject the fundamental theses of Charles Darwin.
...Oh, wait. They are actually called physics and biology.

>the point is that if you reject the fundamentals of what he said
All the problems arise, because Marx-worshippers were retarded enough to call their esoteric teachings as "marxism".

>as far as Marx-ism is concerned, yes. what else would define Marxism
Hence, no genealogical continuity is allowed.

[Anonymous No.20477690]

>>20476784
AY fucking lmao

[Anonymous No.20477704]

>>20476933
In terms of Marx? Nope.
Marx isn't abstract, which means you can't just define away the problem and try to run away from the pragmatism of his writing.

[Anonymous No.20477748]

>>20477704
>Marx isn't abstract
Marx is circular.
What differentiates the productive labor from the unproductive one? It produces the surplus.
How do I know this labor produces a surplus? It should be productive, duh.

>the pragmatism of his writing
magical surplus simultaneously exists and does not, depending on one's opinion.

>you can't just define away the problem
you can't just define away the gods' wrath by claiming they don't exist, okay.

[Anonymous No.20477784]

>>20470364
Marx wasn’t even that bad, he was a necessary advancement of thought and his ideas he put forth would have had to be confronted sooner or later, but most of his ideas are now very outdated. The real problem is the people who think he had some sort of advanced metaphysics that can be applied to the modern geist to prove he was right, when in reality he was wrong with almost all of his predictions. My guess is the reason we still see so much of him is due to overall feelings of inferiority and lack of the power process which are prevalent in modern, guilt conscious western society.

[Anonymous No.20477809]

>>20477784
>My guess is the reason we still see so much of him is due to
is due to the fact that the mainstream economics are equally outdated >>20476535
Claiming a geocentric model over a flat Earth theory is an improvement.

Of course, there are even better alternatives, but the majority is combatting in a battle of shit versus piss.

[Anonymous No.20477983]

>>20477675
>Darwinism is when you reject the fundamental theses of Charles Darwin.
what's even your point? are you suggesting that one can be a Darwinist while rejecting evolution by natural selection?
>All the problems arise, because Marx-worshippers were retarded enough to call their esoteric teachings as "marxism".
what don't you understand about referring to the body of fundamental claims first put forward by Karl Marx as "Marxism"? "all the problems arise" because you have issues with basic brain functioning
>Hence, no genealogical continuity is allowed.
no, what's not allowed is confusing genealogical relation with the relation of identity
>>20477748
>How do I know this labor produces a surplus?
you subtract the cost of production of the commodities it produces from the revenue from their sale.
your ignorance is not proof of circularity. you can restate every judgment "X is Y" as "X is Y, and Y is X" and claim it's circular like an utter retard.

[Anonymous No.20478072]

>>20477983
>are you suggesting that one can be a Darwinist while rejecting evolution by natural selection?
Once upon a time, there lived mutationists. And they rejected Darwin's theory.
But now, we have Modern Synthesis, and it has reconciled both.

>the body of fundamental claims
>what's not allowed is confusing genealogical relation with the relation of identity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism

>you subtract the cost of production
Which you cannot objectively deduct.
1. Neither via calculating an objectively-measured abstract labor hour. (pic related)
2. Nor via deducing it from prices >>20476041
>There ain't any fucking reason why ONLY labor would matter in cost calculation. Therefore, ANYTHING potentially can matter in that calculation. How much would, then, labor be a part of the cost? 1%? 99%? Moving in-between?

>your ignorance
No, yours.

[Anonymous No.20478202]

>>20477078
>>20477398
It is also going to be the one union with the highest percentage of women in it.
Class has nothing to do with it. Ontario teachers unions are literally organizing autodafe to appease the Native population. McGill University "strongly recommend" to their student prefacing every paper they write by an apology to the (literal cannibals, btw) Native populations that had to be displaced in order to eventually have the university built.
Meanwhile French-Canadians still learn the traditional account of Dollars's battle, treat chuggers like shit in general and would probably arm themselves faster to defend their Tintin and Asterix & Obelisk collection than they would for independence. And they have the highest unionization percentage in NA by far (39% in comparison to 10% for the US or 16% for Mexico).

[Anonymous No.20478242]

>>20478072
>Once upon a time, there lived mutationists. And they rejected Darwin's theory. But now, we have Modern Synthesis, and it has reconciled both.
and? answer my question
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism
respond instead of dropping links like a coward
>Which you cannot objectively deduct.
deduct? you just look into the accounting books and it's going to be written there lol.
>There ain't any fucking reason why ONLY labor would matter in cost calculation. Therefore, ANYTHING potentially can matter in that calculation. How much would, then, labor be a part of the cost? 1%? 99%? Moving in-between?
this is completely irrelevant. I'm talking about the total cost, which is simply a difference in sums of money between two points in time. you're hopelessly confused on the absolute basic facets of this. that's probably why you can't state a position but instead you have to resort to pasting wikipedia links and random pages you googled in a hurry.

[Anonymous No.20478276]

>>20478242
>you just look into the accounting books and it's going to be written there lol.
That's all nice and all, but does surplus and labor have to do with this?

>I'm talking about the total cost, which is simply a difference in sums of money between two points in time
Yet according to Marx, this is not a definition. Certain activities, like insurance business, for example, do not produce surplus. Though you can still get a difference in sums of money between two points in time.
>you're hopelessly confused on the absolute basic facets of this
No, you.

>this is completely irrelevant
Labor Theory of Value is completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.20478399]

>>20477611
You say “teachers” like this is even a comprehensive list. A few professors of some prestigious universities make some upper prole cash to live comfortably, but you’re an idiot ideologue and ignore the vast majority who make chicken feed and are continually fighting a managerial chaff department for their meager benefits and school supplies. The fight against unions is real, tard.

But, get rid of New Deal unions. They suck, they’re corrupted. Further, get rid of the Prussian workman factory we call public schooling. It kills free healthy independent people’s spirits

[Anonymous No.20478530]

>>20475976
>you can't call someone a defect.... or else you're a schizo
Great non argument.

[Anonymous No.20478550]

>>20476403
Leftists are not Marxists. Rightists are more similar in praxis and theoretical outlook in that their assessment is material and amoral to Marxism than 99.9% of the modern so called left which themselves are distinct in that they're bourgeois moralistic educated city slickers.

[Anonymous No.20478600]

>>20478399
>but you’re an idiot ideologue and ignore the vast majority who make chicken feed and are continually fighting a managerial chaff department for their meager benefits and school supplies
sure, people in the middle class can often struggle against their employers. they can struggle against capital in myriad different ways too: as small business owners defending themselves against big monopolies, as tenants defending themselves against corporate landlords, and so on. none of that makes them not middle class though.
>But, get rid of New Deal unions. They suck, they’re corrupted. Further, get rid of the Prussian workman factory we call public schooling. It kills free healthy independent people’s spirits
appeals for reforms are to be directed to the bourgeois state, not to me. I'm sure capital will care greatly for empty laments about spirits being killed

[Anonymous No.20478706]

>>20478600
>people in the middle class can often struggle against their employers.
Oh oh oh. I see now. You see working class as middle class.
Middle class are like small but successful business owners. They still work but could easily switch gears, retire early, afford major medical bills with no worries, own large boats and second homes.

[Anonymous No.20478777]

>>20475043
Pic doesn't include unit 731

[Anonymous No.20478805]

>>20478706
>Oh oh oh. I see now. You see working class as middle class.
no I don't

[Anonymous No.20478859]

>>20477611
>you think the goal of communism is to have successful capitalist states except with red flags? seriously, what do you think communism is?
The goal is to have successful socialist states with red flags and decent living standards.
>I personally think it was Santa Claus
That's the Reddit in you seeping through

[Anonymous No.20478870]

>>20478706
>Middle class are like small but successful business owners. They still work but could easily switch gears, retire early, afford major medical bills with no worries, own large boats and second homes.
No, that's lower tier wealthy. Middle-class are working stiffs who've paid off most of their mortgage, live in a decent school district, have a couple of nice cars, and managed to get a kid through college without too much debt. No boat, except maybe a bass boat, and a time share at best.

[Anonymous No.20479000]

>>20475323
Why did he push for labor unions? why did he involve himself in the first international? why did he state that the point of his writings was to change the world? i dont think your interpretation holds any water where are you getting it from

[Anonymous No.20479074]

because it's been repeatedly proven to be factual