/biz/ - Business & Finance

No class consciousness among the proletariat because of a powerful propaganda apparatus among the bourgeoisie.

>>1559471

you can only take others people stuff for so long

>>1559519
>taking back stuff stolen from you in the first place is theft

>>1559471
>If you really want to get rich, why don't you just seize the means of production?

I AM the means of production.

>>1559471
Why is 'time value of money' such a hard concept for socialists?

Fetishism of capital right? Capital from capital. It's very simple. $1 today is worth more that $1 five years from now.

If you're willing to put your dollar at risk and take risks building something with those valuable dollars today, then maybe you'll be right and be a rich owner in the future or maybe you'll lose out. You're free to make the gamble. What we cannot have is a mob with torches stealing the winning gambles of the past.

>>1559559
insanely stupid response to op. time value of money has nothing to do with what op stated. fetishism of capital is also not capital from capital or anything related. stupid motherfucker.

seizing the means of production would erase the exchange relation on which the concept of money or capital holds at all. it would not be about gambling but more about planning what is to be done with the resources as a society for the society.

planning with the resources would mean that the basic needs of everyone are met and that no one would need a middle thing, money, to make his needs count.

in a capitalist society, no fucks are given if you are hungry. a fuck is given when you are hungry and bring money to the market. then you can exchange your money for that what satisfies your needs. this exchange relation is implied by having private production. those that own the means of production produce, in order to swap their products on the market for money - they guess what could be sold. and what cant be sold usually gets destroyed and isnt there to satisfy anybody in the first place. thats incredibly stupid and reading a response like yours makes me want to vomit right into your disgusting blind minded propaganda spreading face.

>>1559559
Learn economics

>>1559583
Sorry my nativity disgusted you so professor. Could you share some examples when a central planning office knew more than the entrepreneur?

I can't think of any maybe because there are none. My post absolutely has to do with what op stated because waiting for government to act will leave everyone waiting forever and bread lines down the street people starving to death. Has that ever happened with socialism? Yes every time. Better go back to community college another year poorfag.

>>1559600
this is a joke, right

>>1559600

>Carl Marx was financially supported by a, wait for it, FACTORY OWNER.
>taking him seriously

>>1559631
> confusing the content of arguments with the economic constraint of living in a capitalist society

>>1559631
He seized the means of production

>>1559471
>this joke is still going

guys, it's been almost 200 years, stop

>>1559654
naw, it's not time to stop, it's time to start wondering: it's been over 140 years and still barely anyone has understood what he has said.

>>1559612
asking questions explain nothing and moreover, asking that kind of question as a response to what I've written earlier is even more disgusting to what I replied there.

You ignore everything that I've said and try to make it look ridiculous by means of giving a false view on history.
socialism is absolutely not equivalent to what I've stated should happen. there were horrendous mistakes made in the soviet union, in china and cuba. although i am not interested in giving history lessons, let me tell you this: none of these examples resolved all the contradictions that are put forth by a capitalist society. being a socialistic state in a community of capitalist states while being dependent on other states forces you to trade with the other states, i.e. to accept the exchange relation put forth by capitalism. this implies that the state has to produce as a capitalist itself in order to maintain its budget. since everything was owned by the state, the state itself had to exploit its citizens.

and indeed: a central planning office that does not have to deal with a money based trade with other nations and is run rationally does know more about what is really relevant than the entrepreneur. the entrepreneur does not primarily care about what people need. although he needs to produce something that people need, the peoples desire is not the main moment - the entrepreneur is only interested in the production of goods that people need AND that people are willing to pay for, i.e. the entrepreneur doesnt give a fuck if you're hungry, but he gives a fuck if you're hungry and got money to pay for the satisfcation of your needs.
this means that the entrepreneur gathers qualitatively different knowledge than what is needed to satisfy the people - he's out for profit - and food gets thrown away if no one buys.

>>1559689
>but he gives a fuck if you're hungry and got money to pay for the satisfaction of your needs

This is a two person transaction between the producer and the consumer. You've shown that if the producer makes a profit from the transaction, he is happy. He valued the money more than the product he provided to the consumer. Now if we look at this transaction from the consumer's perspective, he gets the satisfaction of having this good rather than the money. He valued the good more than the money. Both parties benefit from this transaction, assuming it was voluntary and neither was required trade what they had for something they valued less.

> a central planning office that does not have to deal with a money based trade with other nations and is run rationally does know more about what is really relevant than the entrepreneur.

How does the central planning office know what is relevant?

>>1559471
Doesn't that violate the NAP?

>>1559583
COLOMBIA
O
L
O
M
B
I
A

>>1559600
Ah yes, the man truly was a great man, wanted it so that all in poor conditions can be brought up out of poordom... unless you are his kids, then you can die from starvation for all he cares.

Look at his damn evolved neckbeard

>>1559583
Yep, venezuela is doing great

>>1559471
>>1559525
>>1559519
>>1559471
means of production is just people working bro. Marx turned that into some sort of metaphysical concept. Therefore you cant declare slavery of the human race and make them work for you for free, simply because that would be the end of capitalism because no one would be able to buy shit. Mises > Marx.
>>1559534
exacly.

Every businessman should read Karl Marx, you have to learn how to exploit your workers.

ITT: SPOOKS

>>1559771
yes, both parties of the transaction are happy if it takes place. the problem is that no transaction takes place for those that can't pay and it doesn't matter if you're hungry, you're simply ignored by the market.

>How does the central planning office know what is relevant?

it asks the people. one can think of pretty efficient methods very easily: you can do that shit online, but some IT and logistics guys would probably find a more efficient solution.

>>1559862
>>1559886
you moron. you ignorant propaganda spewing bastard. if you would've read my statement correctly, you would've found the mistake in the thought that a nation within a capitalist society that wants to be socialistic cannot survive: "none of these examples resolved all the contradictions that are put forth by a capitalist society. being a socialistic state in a community of capitalist states while being dependent on other states forces you to trade with the other states, i.e. to accept the exchange relation put forth by capitalism. this implies that the state has to produce as a capitalist itself in order to maintain its budget. since everything was owned by the state, the state itself had to exploit its citizens. "
the concept of a state itself is exclusive (i.e. it demands private ownership at least on a national level) and, if there are a bunch of states, they will have an exchange relation that implies capitalist dynamics because the state itself has an artificial need to accumulate wealth ignoring the needs of its citizens, leading to the misery we see today. states are unnecessary and source of misery because it contains the concept of private ownership which implies the abovementioned exchange relation.

>>1561100
>you would've found the mistake in the thought that a nation within a capitalist society that wants to be socialistic cannot survive

i have to correct: can survive.

>>1559961
wrong. means of production are land, machines, the whole industry. but the majority doesnt own those means, they are private. most people have nothing but their own ability to work. because they are forced to have money if they want to survive (since the market doesnt give a fuck if you starve but dont have money), they are forced to sell the only thing they have: their work force.

Marx didn't that into a metaphysical concept: in the contrary, he found that the concept of exchange value is metaphysical (read e.g. chapter 1.4.)

The conclusive character of your next sentence is by no means justified and basically utter bullshit: "therefore", you begin, but it is absolutely unclear for what.

>>1560403
this is reasonable but too narrow. marx puts forth an explanation of capitalism. he tells you how it operates in general, and indeed, exploitation of workers is also a part of it. he does not provide a method by which you can succeed doing so but he provides an explanation of the practical constraints.If you as a capitalist don't follow these constraints, you are more likely to lose, e.g. you are pretty much forced to exploit your workers if you want to survive as a company, but if you don't, which you can try, you will not profit and thus lose - so that's a couple of lessons you can learn since this easy example is by no means the only practical constraint explained within the capital.

>>1561107
>>1561100
>>1559689
>>1559638
>>1559600
>>1559583
>>1559525
>>1559471
>filthy commies on a "business & finance" board

free helicopter rides for all

>>1561155
>participating in a discussion
>not putting forth any argument but insults

I don't know what makes a communist filthy. The filth really is accumulated in a capitalist society. Moreover everyone that read the capital very carefully and understood it, is quite a good economist. Remember that the capital only explains the mechanisms of this society, it doesn't even offer an alternative.

and while I see that the capitalist society is pretty much a stupid form of organizing the worlds resources, I see myself forced to behave accordingly because this stupid form of organization is enforced by violence and I know that I will be ignored by the market if I starve, so I am forced to have money, as explained earlier.

Seeing this, I'd absolute try to avoid being a fucking wagecuck forced to work 60% of his time awake for some capital lord until im almost 70. This is why I run businesses myself. Critique of capitalism is not morally motivated, I just look at the facts and practically being a capitalist myself won't stop me from seeing things as they are.

I find it quite hilarious that the workers don't see that they produce their own oppression by generating the capitalists wealth, i.e. the capitalists means of oppression. they could just stop altogether.

This fucking Marx jew is lulzing in his grave over you goy fools who waste the time it takes to analyze his bullshit creed he knew to be patently false, which served as the perfect ideology to ensnare a massive, illiterate, alcoholic, proletariat class of Russians who fell for his class warfare hogwash which enabled massive civil unrest and revolution while fellow jew marxist agents waited in the wings and spearheaded straight to top positions of Russian government while the dreg masses stood by and scratched their heads, shrugged their shoulders, went home and drank vodka provided by jews who cornered the booze industry for the expressed intent of turning all Russians into alcoholics to make them too drunk and stupid to participate in the 'revolution' in the long term. Marxism was THE tool that enabled the takeover of that entire sovereignty, and hopes where that it would sweep through europe and eventually the world so jews in every country would dominate. These fucks were eventually exposed and quietly executed, but no matter - they won. Look at our fucked up world today and notice who controls key positions of power. Now proceed on, waste your time discussing the viability of marxism.

>>1559471
Globalization, you can source it cheaper, easier, less hassle outside of native. However if nanites can be easily manufactured, programmable, capable. There would no long need to be a denomination to store work as money would become work onto itself. Fuck Marx, he was batshit and he knew it.

>>1559600
The transformation problem is a real thing that exists, which therefore means the LTV is false, and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is empirically false. Marx was wrong

>>1561100
Good. So you admit that socialism is pointless since it is always destined to fail. There will always be capitalist states somewhere and trade with capital will always keep going. I know you said you refuse to "give history lessons" but you might want to look into bartering systems between states versus trading capital. Capital works well for trade it isn't going anywhere either. You can stop responding now that you have admitted you are wrong in the context of fucking reality we live in.

>>1561172
not even taking your phantasy seriously. you provide 0 arguments that involve what he actually wrote.
>>1561278
To claim that Marx was entirely wrong because one little thought that appears in the 3rd and last part of the capital is not reasonable. Although one can show that the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is not even wrong, you'd also have to refute every other or more fundamental thoughts. But since you start out with criticizing a not so important consequence of the later theory, I assume you'd say that Capital part 1, part 2 and part 3 are entirely correct up to the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. right? if not, state what you find is wrong explicitly.

>>1561295
socialism is doomed to fail as long as it has to trade with capitalist states and the capitalist states own the majority of the resources.

>There will always be capitalist states somewhere and trade with capital will always keep going
this is not necessarily true or can you prove your point?

> You can stop responding now that you have admitted you are wrong in the context of fucking reality we live in.

The reality is that the workers of the world could easily seize the means of production and set up an organization of production that produces for the people and not for profit. If enough workers do this globally, and knew how to set up the organization processes, the systematics could be changed for the good within a couple of months. the only problem is that the workers don't know the mechanisms of the capitalist society and thus are unable to deduce a system which resolves the contradictions that are put forth by the capitalist society.

>>1561613
Did you even look what I said about the transformation problem?

Also there is no tendency of the rate of profit to fall

http://hussonet.free.fr/tprof9.pdf