Marxist Economics

File: 35 KB, 600x450, People's Flag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Marxist Economics Maoist-Bolshevik Sat Feb 15 19:52:07 2014 No.32141 [DELETED]

Friendly reminder that the only decent economic school is Marxist and all capitalism has ever done has made a tiny elite incredibly rich and powerful from the labor of the masses.

I eagerly await the day the richest 1% of the Earth's population, and the top 1% of every country's respective citizens, are lined up and shot. On that day humankind will finally stop being slaves and can move into an era of freedom, prosperity, brotherhood, and mutual respect.

This thread is for people who actually understand economics, i.e. Marxists, so stay out if you're an edgy teenager who thinks he's going to be a billionaire, or have a fedora full of bitcoins.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 19:54:06 2014 No.32166 >>32141 Or you could be talking about something useful like trade union organisation instead of trolling. You've not ever read Braverman on labour process have you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 19:55:36 2014 No.32174 I know this is bait, but for the record, Marxism isn't economics, it is sociology. Marxism is to economics as psychology is to science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 19:57:06 2014 No.32207 Have you not read A Tale of Two Cities?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 19:58:07 2014 No.32226 >>32174 not OP but there is a field of 'Marxist economics' which does go deep into the economic side of the theory. It's fairly interesting.

Maoist-Bolshevik Sat Feb 15 19:58:07 2014 No.32231

>>32166

Yes I could talk about useful idiots and social-democrat stooges, but why would I want to do that?

>>32174

>Marxism is to economics as psychology is to science.

Discounted by people who think they know more than experts? Yeah that sounds about right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 19:59:36 2014 No.32233 >>6111294

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 19:59:36 2014 No.32242

>>32141

You are such a fucking teenager yourself.

>implying if you shot the richest 1% a new richest 1% wouldn't quickly/eventually rise up and take their place.

Yes, punish the wealthy. Turn your country into a fucking welfare state anon. Genius.

It's no wonder the U.S.S.R. has risen to be the mightiest nation on Earth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:00:36 2014 No.32245 >freedom, prosperity, brotherhood, and mutual respect >Liberté, égalité, fraternité

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:00:36 2014 No.32252 File: 9 KB, 200x300, Albert.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >2014 >Marxist Economics >not Parecon How does it feel to know the left has moved on without you?

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:01:06 2014 No.32268

>>32141
>and all capitalism has ever done has made a tiny elite incredibly rich and powerful from the labor of the masses.

and invent so many different technologies and scientific/mathematical concepts that to list them all would be a ridiculous undertaking.

that is not to say that that communist, or as close to that ideal as is possible IRL, have not produced anything.

but the ratio.... even restricting ourselves to developments that *only* occurred during the cold war.....

is ridiculous.

shit nig.... nuke. the foundation of the cold war.

capitalism

NOTE: espionage doesnt count.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:03:36 2014 No.32283 File: 61 KB, 625x626, 1388216335363.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:03:36 2014 No.32284 As great as a Utopian Marxist world would be >are lined up and shot Wake up, go to work, pay bills. Nothing has changed apart from 1% of people get a promotion or something.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:03:36 2014 No.32288 File: 3 KB, 400x370, dafuq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >communism

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:03:36 2014 No.32289 >>>/lit/ Come on mod, do your work. You deleted the Karpelès thread, too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:04:36 2014 No.32294 >>32174 economics is to science as blowing on a jug is to music

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:06:06 2014 No.32333 >>32231 >Yes I could talk about useful idiots and social-democrat stooges, but why would I want to do that? Because the consciousness of the class is forged in the struggle as it is, not in some utopian "mass party" dreaming.

>>	Maoist-Bolshevik Sat Feb 15 20:06:06 2014 No.32334 >>32268 Yeah, God knows the Manhattan project didn't have massive government involvement, direction, or funding.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:06:36 2014 No.32321 >>32294 >>>/sci/ Micro-economics is science, grandpa.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:06:36 2014 No.32326 File: 26 KB, 1024x1024, guaranteed-replies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>32141 >"all capitalism has ever done has made a tiny elite incredibly rich and powerful from the labor of the masses" >on a computer

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:10:06 2014 No.32386 >>32321 Micro-economics is just applied psychology, like how engineering is just applied science. Macro-economics, however, is 99% bunk.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:11:06 2014 No.32401
File: 36 KB, 407x429, Cramer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>32288
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Communism, is in fact, Marxism, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Socialist Economics. Communism is not an ideology unto itself, but rather another derivative economic system of a fully unsustainable ideology defined by college kids, hipsters, autocrats, and other components comprising a full economic system as defined by snot-nosed liberals.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:16:37 2014 No.32460

Marxists deserve to have their throats slit.

They're actually dumb enough to desire their own enslavement and authoritarianism.

They have deep seated psychological problems and were probably beaten and raped as children.

Marxism is so incredibly wrong it's amazing how delusional idiots are still fooled by it.

They don't even believe in evolution, instincts or human nature and instead actually believe all human behavior is socially and (lel) economically constructed.

They're actually that stupid.

This isn't economics or business.
Do you go on /k/ and complain about guns?

I hope you're a troll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:17:37 2014 No.32470 >>32141 And all your rainbows and unicorns fantasy economics has produced is failed states

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:18:06 2014 No.32484 >>32141 >/pol/

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:19:36 2014 No.32491 0/10 trolling Apply yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:20:37 2014 No.32506 >>32141 >implying there is no freedom or prosperity for the common man Get a STEM degree and move to Germany.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:21:06 2014 No.32512

>>32268
Most major technological breakthroughs were funded by the government so try again. We could easily cure cancer, AIDS and a host of other ailments if the private sector did not exist, which holds back many breakthroughs because they will hurt profits.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:22:36 2014 No.32531 >>32512 I know you're trolling but, I lel'd pretty hard Sage though

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:22:36 2014 No.32532 >>32506 Not OP but do you really think that anyone who is dirt poor/homeless/unemployed/etc. can just up and get a college degree?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:25:06 2014 No.32572 >>32532 No because the state articulacy raises the price of tuition with government student loans. It would be cheap as fuck like it was in the 50s/60s if we freed the market and let prices come down.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:26:06 2014 No.32593 >>32532 You can teach yourself online these days.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:28:36 2014 No.32611 >>32572 *artificially Fucking iphone

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:29:37 2014 No.32624 >>32512 >>32512 >C programming language >Transistor >Affordable automobiles >Personal computer >Railroad >Smartphone >Dishwasher >Every single invention by Thomas Edison I could go on...

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:30:06 2014 No.32652 >>32512 Then explain how smallpox was eradicated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:34:36 2014 No.32697 educate yourselves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9Whccunka4&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rog4U_EwZ_g

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:35:06 2014 No.32719 >>32624 Pretty much everything those inventions were based upon had been created by the government though.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:37:07 2014 No.32749

>>32512

toppest of the keks

>implicating it is not the wet dream of every single person on planet earth, communist through uttermost capitalist, to invent/develop/purchase/own/control the knowledge/power/expertise necessary to control the human populace

PROTIP:

if there was a cure, someone would find it, and they would charge a fucking ton of money for it.

the fact that no one is doing so is evidence that no such science or technology exists.

NOTE: US has the best scientists and engineers, by an order of magnitude.

the US is closest.

no cure exists.

EU, UK, Asia, and Australia/NZ are 75 billion miles behind and they are even further from a cure for both HIV and cancer (Viral, genetic, or damage)

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:37:36 2014 No.32743

>>32697
Holy FUCK
He's just repeating the same old Marxist bulkshit that has been debunked a million times. How many times does Marx have to be proven wrong for you to get it?

You people actually believe all human behavior I socially and economically constructed.

You are WRONG.
Evolution is a fact.

Just stop it right now.
Go back to /pol/

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:37:36 2014 No.32746 File: 140 KB, 437x368, 1368035942324.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What's the best way you've personally found to learn how to invest as a beginner?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:38:07 2014 No.32767 >>32746 P/E RATIO

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:39:06 2014 No.32792 >>32743 Could you at least attempt to watch the video before you start incoherently bitching!?

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:40:36 2014 No.32796

>>32719
>human beings are stupid and worthless and cannot do anything without their wise authoritarian overlords
>just trust us and give us all your money

Almost every modern advancement has come from the private sector, people doing thing voluntarily and experimenting.

Not by some scumbags at the top parasiting off the rest of us.

Lol why do you bootlickers even exist?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:40:36 2014 No.32800 >>32719 If we go down that chain we end up with everything invented by men in furs. Should I thank thag or some other caveman whenever I boot up my computer?

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:42:06 2014 No.32831

>>32796

while I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with your logic

>Not by some scumbags at the top parasiting off the rest of us.

PROTIP:

the way it happens is:

1) a person with no creativity or technological/scientific ideas has money

2) invests in technology company

3) pay checks paid to scientists and engineers

4) scientists and engineers make discovery

5) ????

6) PROFIT!

its not a universal truth, but its by far the most common general model.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:43:36 2014 No.32838

>>32792
Ive listened this this guys videos before.

You know you're wrong and science disagrees with you.
You're actually dumb enough to want your own choices and freedom taken away from you.

Respon to my argument or shut the fuck up. Marxists deny human nature and believe that all human behavior is economically and social constructed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:44:36 2014 No.32861 >>32796 How is the government any less authoritarian than a business exactly? You're still being told what to do by higher ups.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:44:36 2014 No.32870 >>32226 >I hate evil capitalists >everyone on this board should be shot Not business or finance. This shit belongs on /pol/

>>	Pory-goon !cWl9wC/NZo Sat Feb 15 20:45:06 2014 No.32882 Marxism works as well as bashing your head against the wall to become smarter. I'm poor, but I can even admit it's a gamble to eliminate the richest 1%.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:46:06 2014 No.32898 >>32882 >hurr i like being a slave EAT DICKS!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:46:37 2014 No.32890 >>32861 You don't have to work for the business is you don't want to. It's voluntary by definition. Inb4 work or starve bullshit

>>	It goes in all fields. Actually, just one. Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:47:06 2014 No.32916 >>32141 I thought we agreed /biz/ was to be made capitalist, why are these threads still here? Go to >>>/r9k/ or >>>/jp/ you fucking neet homo.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:47:36 2014 No.32908 >>32890 >coercion is voluntary Noice.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:48:36 2014 No.32926

>>32890
You don't have to be apart of the military if you don't want to either, yeah you can't just walk out anytime like a business but you go in knowing you'll have to be part of the military for a certain number of years and it is a voluntary decision.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:49:06 2014 No.32941 >>32141 Hybrid economy is best economy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:49:36 2014 No.32935 >>32898 So how will you get people to willingly participate in this system without force?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:49:36 2014 No.32939 >>32926 I can't opt out of being a citizen and paying taxes

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:55:13 2014 No.32999 >>32935 There will be some force involved, Socialism won't come if everyone just wishes for it like Lolbertarians, we aren't "volunteryist" either so fuck that noise. >>32939 Yeah we can't opt out of a lot of responsibilities to society you big baby.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:55:13 2014 No.33009

>>32926
It literally is voluntary, people move jobs or used their saved capital to start up new businesses all the time.
Sorry.

>>32908
>FREEDOM IS COERSION
>HAVING EVERY SINGLE DECISION OF YOUR LIFE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE IS NOT
Nobody is coercing you.
Go move to north Korea if you want to be a slave.
>>32908
>>32908

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:57:43 2014 No.33022

>>33009
>Nobody is coercing you.
>Go move to north Korea if you want to be a slave.
Uhhh, you can't see the contradiction here?

Also what part of a universal and equal access to the means and tools of production could even admit a differential system of force organised as a post-French revolutionary bureaucracy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:58:14 2014 No.33039 >>33009 You could just as well do the same thing upon leaving the military I don't see your point, plus I never said it wasn't "voluntary".

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:58:43 2014 No.33034 >>32401 >implying you could know it's unsustainable

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 20:59:14 2014 No.33042

>>32999
>There will be some force involved, Socialism won't come if everyone just wishes for it like Lolbertarians, we aren't "volunteryist" either so fuck that noise.

Absolutely hilarious. You actually think people are dumb enough to want to be your slaves.
You are an antisocial psychopath.

>responsibilities
My sides.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:02:13 2014 No.33095 >>33009 You can't secure freedom with a little of repression

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:03:44 2014 No.33098

>>33022
>a universal and equal access to the means and tools of production
Because that means the people don't actually get access to he means of production only the fucking state does you gigantic shit eating moron. Only individuals can act. Resources are scarce, groups of people cannot "own" things.
Capitalism is the only system where individuals can access the means of production if they can actually use them to produce more for society.

Also if you gave a bunch of low iq plebs entire factories they would let hem run down and everyone would be worse off.

Kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:04:13 2014 No.33120 >>33095 >we need to be slaves so we can be. This is what marxists actually believe. It's just one faggot making these threads go back to /pol/

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:05:43 2014 No.33126

>>33042
>Absolutely hilarious. You actually think people are dumb enough to want to be your slaves.
You are an antisocial psychopath.
Who will be slaves? The millions of workers wreaping the benfits of their labor for once in their lives? Yeah I'm pretty sure they'll feel very "enslaved" with their 4 day work week and democratic ownership over their own workplace.
>My sides.
Sucking capital from the labor of the minions below you while also claiming to have no responsibility to the very society you funnel workers from to make your way of life possible, humans don't exist in a vacuum sorry, stop thinking like a parasite and more like a human being.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:07:43 2014 No.33146 >>33120 Yes there will be a dictatorship of the proletariet just as their is currently a dictatorship of the capitalists. I know logic is scary.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:07:43 2014 No.33147

>>33098
>Because that means the people don't actually get access to he means of production only the fucking state does you gigantic shit eating moron.
So you're attacking Soviet capitalism? I agree: the repression of the working class by a bourgeoisie was horrible.

>Capitalism is the only system where individuals can access the means of production if they can actually use them to produce more for society.
But you just said the Soviet Union was capitalist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:08:13 2014 No.33157 >>33120 I meant that we will always need something to protect our freedoms. And that protection must be given by the State if we don't want to turn ourselves into barbarians.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:10:13 2014 No.33195

>>33126
>WAGES AND LIVING STANDARSS WILL MAGICALLY RISE IF THE STATE CONTROLS ALL PRODUCTION
Holy shit are you a dumb fuck.
The working class is already consuming what they produce. All resources that exist are fucking consumed by them.
You can of magically change this simply by being an authoritarian cocksuker and taking away people's free choice.

>more labour theory of value bullshit
Seriously? Lol
There is no objective value of labour. Please stop spewing this here. Value is subjective.

You're an authoritarian antisocial psychopath who's parents beat the shit out of him and now he wants to make everyone else's lives worse.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:10:13 2014 No.33201

visit some country in eastern europe if you want to see how every socialist economy ends up in the long run (still nothing like marxist - everyone would just starve to death). in poland, e.g., gas costs 2$ per liter, a pack of cigarettes 5$ and a bottle of cheap whisky 30$ with the average monthly salary about 600$. it's funny how every faggot uses countries like sweden as an example, countries that recently turned into a welfare state after decades of having fairly free market. they can afford wasting money for a while,

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:11:43 2014 No.33210 >>33195 State is needed in order to maintain free competition and prevent monopolies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:12:43 2014 No.33224 >>33146 >bourgeiose >proletariat HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA Yeah sorry we believe in evolution here. Not creationism. There are no "classes". Instincts DO exist.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:12:43 2014 No.33225

>OP: lets kill the 1%

there will always be a 1% you fucking numbskull, you think that the 'common man' just waltzed into positions of power in the USSR or in modern Communist China? at least the system we have now isn't outright totalitarian a la Pol Pot or China and you have a small but tangible chance of making something of yourself. You think that Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are/were poor? No matter what system you have there is a tiny elite at the top and a lot of people at the middle/bottom. Welcome to life you idealist teenage faggot

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:14:43 2014 No.33261 Marxist are actually this retarded. They're not interested in having an argument. They just believe what scripture dictates. Notice how there was no capitalist bible, it just came about naturally.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:16:43 2014 No.33281 >>33261 There are smarter Marxists in the world, they just aren't here.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:16:43 2014 No.33284

>>33195
You're the only "dumb fuck" here, I never said the state would control production workers will, its the entire point of Socialism you moron.
>There is no objective value of labour. Please stop spewing this here. Value is subjective.
Becuase all the value of this labor goes to the top instead of the hands of those who made it, if labor had no objective value then no one would benefit from labor.
>You're an authoritarian antisocial psychopath who's parents beat the shit out of him and now he wants to make everyone else's lives worse.
Wow nice projecting

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:24:13 2014 No.33372 >>33224 >we believe in evolution here >There are no "classes". You're silly! It's almost as if you've never studied biology. Hint: The wolves and the rabbits aren't singing in harmony.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:26:43 2014 No.33391 >>33210 >implying monopolies are inheretly bad

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:27:43 2014 No.33403

>>33284
>worker will
But that's not even fucking possible. It's impossible to collectively own and control something. It just means you don't have any say in how things get produced except for a worthless vote. Or even worse the state will pretend it "represents" the workers and completely control all industry as a dictatorship.

>all value goes to the top
There is no surplus value. It's completely irrelevant. If you somehow magically got your "surplus value" back you would end up with NOTHING
Because society is still consuming the same amount of resources, no new resources have been produced.
Do you understand yet?

>if labour has no objective value
It only has SUBJECTIVE value.
Holy shit.

>projecting
HAHAHAHAHA oh shit I'm not the one who wants to control the lives of others

Kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:29:13 2014 No.33425 File: 32 KB, 250x250, shitposting.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] INB4 lolbergtarians and anclaps burst in with weaponized Mises pdfs

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:30:44 2014 No.33430

>>33372
You don't believe in instincts neuroscience or that hormones have any affect on human behavior lol.

You're a creationist. This is why scientists mock marxists and scientologists.

>rabbits
Classes has nothing to do with this and scientists don't use classes to explain animal behavior.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:30:44 2014 No.33431 >>32141 >>>/USSR/

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:32:14 2014 No.33455 >>33425 Inb4 assblasted marxist scientologists end up in a corner with no argument at all. Evolution denier pls go.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:33:14 2014 No.33468 >>32174 If socialists and marxists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists and marxists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:33:14 2014 No.33477 >>33455 I'm not even a commie, I just love watching you two fight. Sociopathic lolbergtarians on one side, blind utopian commies on the other, neither with a single notable thing to say

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:34:43 2014 No.33484 >>33147 The soviet union barely employed capatalism

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:36:13 2014 No.33513

>>33468
You are a fucking moron. I am a finance major, who did finance because I wanted to study a subject more specialized yet still easier than economics. I can tell you right now you do not belong on this board because you have no grasp of any knowledge in any part of life because your IQ, if it was not impossible, would be in the negative. Please kill yourself ASAP for being that fucking stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:36:13 2014 No.33521 >>33484 I kno rite. They weren't authoritarian enough. >>33477 >sociopathic Riiiight because not using violence against others is sociopathic, but using violence is. You retarded faggot.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:36:43 2014 No.33514

>>33403
>It's impossible to collectively own and control something.
I guess you're simply retarded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
>There is no surplus value.
Yeah keep saying that as you go to buy that new yacht or huge beach house in the Keys; and please tell me how value of labor is "subjective" someone is getting that surplus value and it sure as hell ain't workers.
>HAHAHAHAHA oh shit I'm not the one who wants to control the lives of others
I've already illustrated exactly what I want: worker ownership of production.
I have no clue where shit about wanting to control people, this is especially rich coming from a board full of wannabee CEOs hoping to control and steal the value produced by their workers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:37:13 2014 No.33538 >>33477 Yet you can't offer an argument against either one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:37:13 2014 No.33544 >>33528 >Buy what they want Buy what the state let them buy. And that the state had some control of the production of.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:37:43 2014 No.33528 >>33484 the soviet union gave an allowance of rubles to their citizens to use to buy whatever they want they did this for decades

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:38:13 2014 No.33555

>>33484
>The soviet union barely employed capatalism
Most labour in the Soviet Union was wage labour, as in the overwhelming majority.

The Soviet ruling class extracted surplus value and reinvested or consumed it in the value form.

The Soviet Union had internal production markets where production had to be realised.

The Government of the Soviet Union voted investments to firms much like US style bail outs. These propped up industries who were failing to realise value on the production market.

Workers used wages to pay for consumer goods produced for the purpose of producing surplus value.

>barely
Fundamentally. Read your NEP, One Man Management, and structure of industry and market during the five year plans.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:38:44 2014 No.33550 >>33521 Whoa, easy there on the false dichotomies and oversimplifications, chump. Don't you have some reds to bark at ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:41:43 2014 No.33580 >>33484 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy Well they did attempt a form of mixed economy capitalism but was repealed by Stalin

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:42:43 2014 No.33595

>>33580
>Well they did attempt a form of mixed economy capitalism but was repealed by Stalin

Not at all, the private owners of NEP industries were dispossessed, and the State became the dominant shareholder (though unions, party, etc. combines, other industries also held shares). The businesses still operated on for profit bases.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:43:14 2014 No.33606

>>33430
>scientists don't use classes to explain animal behavior.
>Prey and predator are not classifications that explain behavior
>Force carrier and leptons are not classifications that explain behavior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics

I'm not the original person you were arguing with either.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:44:14 2014 No.33630

>>33514
>cooperative
Wow thanks for proving my point. I love when you leftists shoot yourselves in the foot.
Enjoy your "voting"
Also leftists say these companies aren't true worker owned firms.

YOU COULDN'T EVEN RESPOND TO MY POINT ABOUT HOW THE WORKERS WILL END UP WITH NOTHING

YOU KNOW THIS IS A FACT AND IT DEEPLY DISTURBS YOU

>muh yachts
You do know that the consumer goods actually consumed by capitalists themselves compared to the amount of consumer goods consumed by the "working class" is quite literally the equivalent of a drop in a bucket when talking about all of the consumer goods produced in the economy right?
You would basically get the equivalent of 2 cents an hour back from them. Lel

Wait lol you don't even know the difference between consumer goods and capital goods.
Lol just wow. Why can't we shoot you people in the head and be done with it?

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:45:14 2014 No.33648

>>33544

no.

they literally gave them paper money

they could burn the money for all that the Kremlin cared

they could go out and buy Levi brand jeans, smuggled into the CCCP.

before 1992, maximum numbers of 12 years a slavs would walk around wearing Levis and Big Dog T-shirts purchased with their ruble allowance

SOURCE: I went to St. Petersburg in 1995 because my dad was working for a company that developed software using Russian programmers and they told me all about it.

more than Jeans and big dog T-shirts?

cigarettes.

Lucky Strikes

alll

fucking

day

We brought some Nerf guns and some of those two-person sling shots that you use to launch water balloons...

it was like watching 4 year old children play.

Later on, we brought some of the programmers to California to go see the glorious wonders of American capitalism.

we took them to Universal Studios and Disneyland

their greatest, most jaw dropping moment of being in the US?

going to Fry's Electronics to see that they had an entire fucking aisle devoted to computer hardware.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:47:43 2014 No.33659

>>33606
They don't use MARXIST classes you fucking retard.

Classes cannot act only specific things can

>baaawww muh reductionism
>baaawww science is bourgeiose

You people don't even believe evolution or instincts apply to human behavior.
Seriously you're that dumb.

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:51:13 2014 No.33708

>>33606

>implicating that evolution does not explicitly apply to each individual species alone, effectively in isolation

>implicating that you literally do not compete with other HUMANS

>implicating that you actually compete with lions and apes and shit

>implicating that the fundamental axiom of evolution is not the competition among members of one single species

>implicating that this fundamental axiom was not encoded into biology before there was life

>implicating it was not encoded when the first protein or RNA molecule was competing, by the laws of thermodynamics, molecular dynamics, and quantum mechanics, with other molecules inside of a liposome that spontaneously formed 3.5 billion years ago

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:52:13 2014 No.33729

>>33514
Not that guy, I can't seriously picture my 6 million people city as a communist place as Marx or whoever envisoned. Capitalism and it are very distinct, you can't simply do this kind of shit in a year and even then. Capitalism is far from perfect, but it's not that bad in the 21st century and I'm barely lower middle in a fucking third world country

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:54:13 2014 No.33751 >>33729 lower middle class*

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:58:44 2014 No.33802

>>33514

>worker ownership of production

that makes a lot of sense in an *extremely* simple industrialized society.... such as the industrial society of the "burgeoning" industrialized western world that existed when Marx, and contemporaries, envisioned and expounded upon the original philosophy

let me ask a simple question:

who owns the CREATIVITY?

when the creativity is biologically restricted to an extreme minority of the population?

NOTE: biologically restricted == experimental evidence supports the fact that humanity, as a species, is not creative.

a fractional minority of the population is explitly or implicity creative, regardless of education or socio economic status

without going into detail, the most obvious way to measure this is to look at human history and say:

"if everyone was creative, we would have had rocket ships and colonized mars 10,000 years ago"

in reality the percentage of the population that is creative, in the sense that is relevant to the human species (eg creative w/r to technology and social interaction), is 10s or hundred thousandths of the population

eg with a population of 7.14 billion people, there are between 70,000 to 700,000 such creative people ALIVE RIGHT NOW

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:58:44 2014 No.33803 >>33659 >You people don't even believe evolution or instincts apply to human behavior. I take it you've never read "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution"?

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:59:44 2014 No.33811

>>33630
>Wow thanks for proving my point. I love when you leftists shoot yourselves in the foot.
Enjoy your "voting"
Also leftists say these companies aren't true worker owned firms.
What point are you even trying to make here? That co-ops aren't socialist? Well duh but they're very close to what socialist are aiming for.
>YOU COULDN'T EVEN RESPOND TO MY POINT ABOUT HOW THE WORKERS WILL END UP WITH NOTHING
Well workers would only get the surplus value AFTER other expenses to run the firm were accounted for obviously.
>YOU KNOW THIS IS A FACT AND IT DEEPLY DISTURBS YOU
More projecting from you again
>You do know that the consumer goods actually consumed by capitalists themselves compared to the amount of consumer goods consumed by the "working class" is quite literally the equivalent of a drop in a bucket when talking about all of the consumer goods produced in the economy right?
You would basically get the equivalent of 2 cents an hour back from them. Lel
That pretty much has nothing to do with what I'm saying, I didn't say the market would sustain itself on rich luxury goods just that it was an example of where much surplus value goes.
>Lol just wow. Why can't we shoot you people in the head and be done with it?
uh huh, who was the sociopath here again?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 21:59:44 2014 No.33813 >>33803 I take it you have never read: "hominids: they were just Apes for like 4 million years before they were humans"

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:07:43 2014 No.33911 >>33659 Yeah it sucks we live in a world where the stupid monkeys who thought they didn't need help from the others and walked out into the savannah alone and promptly got eaten by Lion now run society.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:07:43 2014 No.33912 >>33659 >evolution >apply to human behavior. I believe you need to review what evolution is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:10:43 2014 No.33934 >>32141 Coultn' we have like, a hybrid welfare state and amybe not murder people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:12:13 2014 No.33970 >>32231 >Yes I could talk about useful idiots and social-democrat stooges, but why would I want to do that? welp, I dunno about you fellas but my troll alarm just went off

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:13:13 2014 No.33977

>>33811
>That co-ops aren't socialist?
They aren't totally democratic/socialist, they have shareholders and bosses. If these worker owned firms could actually provide higher wages to their workers then they would dominate the market and replace capitalist firms.
Worker owned firms do not dominate because they are very inefficient to the structure of production. Any small business owner could turn his company into a cooperative but he knows it will ruin him.
Monodragon is an actual very productive company that's why they have higher(slightly) wages than your average firm.

>Well workers would only get the surplus value AFTER other expenses to run the firm were accounted for obviously.
I'm not talking about fucking surplus value, money does not equal resources, it's a tool you use to pull resources towards you. The supply and demand of money has an inverse effect on the supply and demand of goods in the economy.

>More projecting from you again
Nice one, I can taste how angry you are having your ideology destroyed by basic logic.

>That pretty much has nothing to do with what I'm saying
It has everything to do with what you're saying.
I just proved that taking over the firm will not benefit you and the workers. Were you saying something else?

>I didn't say the market would sustain itself on rich luxury goods
I never said that at all. In fact a very very small percent of the economy is involved in the production of rich luxury goods.
I'm telling you, you wouldn't benefit whatsoever.
So getting more "surplus" value is completely irrelevant, if you took all of their money and gave it to the workers, prices in the economy will simply rise to meet that new demand, you'll end up with nothing.

u mad?

>uh huh, who was the sociopath here again?
You. Are you saying it's wrong that rapists and murders are killed or removed from society?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:13:13 2014 No.33986 >>33970 It basically means they're an ultraist Maoist sectarian; in other words, they're a 19 year old child of the bourgeoisie.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:14:13 2014 No.33999 >>33912 >evolution >a term that describes the global chemical dynamics of biochemicals inside of living cells (including neurons) >applicable to every living species that has ever existed

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:16:13 2014 No.34032

>>33912
You're ACTUALLY saying human beings do not have evolutionary instincts that drive their brains? Are you fucking serious?
The desire to have sex, the desire to have a family, anger, jealosy and other emotions?
You actually think they are social or economic constructs.

People, this is what marxists ACTUALLY believe.
Next time a marxist talks to you, remember, this is the core of their ideology, the denial of human nature.

>>33986
>bourgeoisie.
The ride never ends.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:16:44 2014 No.34024 >>33912 >evolution >not influencing behavior

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:18:13 2014 No.34050

Anyone up for some Soviet Era Russian jokes?

Q: What's the difference between a capitalist fairy tale and a Marxist fairy tale?
A: A capitalist fairy tale begins, "Once upon a time, there was....". A Marxist fairy tale begins, "Some day, there will be...."

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:18:13 2014 No.34057 >>33977 >Are you saying it's wrong that rapists and murders are killed or removed from society? YES!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:22:13 2014 No.34096 >>34057 >rapists and murderers should be let free because to think otherwise is ebul capitalist bourgeoisie oppression TOP LEL

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:26:13 2014 No.34152 >>34096 I think what he was implying was that killing people for making antisocial behavioral decisions is wrong. I don't agree, but I still think that is what was meant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:27:13 2014 No.34164 >>34050 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_jokes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_political_jokes

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:36:43 2014 No.34276

>>33977
>They aren't totally democratic/socialist, they have shareholders and bosses.
Yeah I know, socialist firms could have bosses as well if one is voted in.
>If these worker owned firms could actually provide higher wages to their workers then they would dominate the market and replace capitalist firms.
The business establishment does not want this, there are plenty of profitable co-ops, Mondragon is more profitable then majority of firms in Spain
>I'm not talking about fucking surplus value, money does not equal resources, it's a tool you use to pull resources towards you. The supply and demand of money has an inverse effect on the supply and demand of goods in the economy.
How is this any different than a traditional capitalist business? The only main difference is the way money is distributed and the democratic decision making.
>Nice one, I can taste how angry you are having your ideology destroyed by basic logic.
You're the only one angry here, but you've been projecting this entire thread
>I never said that at all.
No just heavily implying.
>more "surplus" value is completely irrelevant
Tell that to the workers.
>u mad?
nope
>You. Are you saying it's wrong that rapists and murders are killed or removed from society?
They should, unfortunately for someone like yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:41:13 2014 No.34347 >>34096 who said anything about lketting them free. you seem to want to kill them. alos no OP

Anonymous Sat Feb 15 22:51:46 2014 No.34452

>>34276
Lol took you long enough to reply kiddo.

>socialist firms could have bosses as well if one is voted in.
I thought the idea was to get rid of bosses? Also these things shouldn't be "voted in". People should let various things happen and see what works. Having a boss plan the structure of production and resources is very efficient for the economy. It's incredibly naive to think you can just vote on these things.

>The business establishment does not want this,
It's not up to them at all. It's especially not up to them at all in a free market. They can't do anything at all to prevent this, this is why there's competition. All it would take is a few workers to put their resources together and start their own firm, that firm would dominate because it could provide higher wages. This does not happen because it's very inefficient.

>there are plenty of profitable co-ops,
Except for the fact there are very few and they do not dominate the market.

>How is this any different than a traditional capitalist business?
Decisions are no longer made by people who spent years educating themselves to be put in that position to make that decision. That's absolutely stupid and horrible. I don't want the janitor to have any say in what kind of car is produced.

>but you've been projecting this entire thread
Coming from the lolbutthurt faggot who had his entire ideology destroyed.

>Tell that to the workers.
>emotional appeals
HAHAHAHHAHA OH GOD
Wow it's over. You lost, pack up your bags and go home.

The facts are right in front of your face kid.

You won't even respond to things that directly prove you dead wrong. Reply to this:
>So getting more "surplus" value is completely irrelevant, if you took all of their money and gave it to the workers, prices in the economy will simply rise to meet that new demand, you'll end up with nothing.

>They should, unfortunately for someone like yourself.
You're literally advocating murder.
Of course society would want to end your life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 23:35:13 2014 No.34953 People like to keep getting fucked over by the 1%, the majority of the people are sluts. I ain't one I keep my anus dick free.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 23:42:45 2014 No.35055 >>34953 Yes they're called leftists and progressives, ironically. Free market would put a stop to this corruption.

>>	happy_shlemazel Sat Feb 15 23:47:13 2014 No.35118 File: 118 KB, 720x960, 1386021904309.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Maoist-Bolshevik Topkek Is this you op?

>>	Pory-goon !cWl9wC/NZo Sat Feb 15 23:50:13 2014 No.35150 >>32898 That is what communism demands otherwise the libertarians and capitalists will say fuck your shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 23:51:43 2014 No.35172 >>33391 fundamental theorem of welfare economics does not hold in non-competitive economies

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 23:53:43 2014 No.35206 >>35150 Not him, but if people want change there will be change but I guess we don't. I don't like capitalism but I know I hate the fact that there is such a thing as the 1%

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 15 23:55:43 2014 No.35230 File: 9 KB, 278x181, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Maoist

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:11:10 2014 No.35418

>>32870
>Implying marxian economists would ever say something like that.

It's sad really. Marx did his damn best to prove that capitalists are actually necessary for capital circulation in a capitalist system and don't have a choice but to exploit the worker's surplus value. His point was that the problems with capitalism are systemic and not personal/ethical. It's not capitalist A or Bs fault that it crashes.

That was the same time the classical liberals were shouting to the sky that capitalism is an infallible system and what causes the boom and bust cycles (we're not even talking serious systemic crashes) are evil immoral capitalists who haven't accepted the virtues of capitalism that Mill described.

He also explicitly explained that when he is saying the capitalist exploits the workers' surplus value he means literally, as in using the resources that they have produced to invest into (primarilly) more capital goods and workers. He did mention that the exchange between the workers and the capitalist is a normatively voluntary pareto exchange.

>Implying capitalists read Marx
>Implying anarchists read Marx
>Implying marxists read Marx

It's an ocean of strawmen and rumours and hearsay and noone bothers reading what he supposedly espouses or disagrees with.

There are "critiques" of marxism that people believe in and recurgitate that fall apart if you read the first three pages of the capital. Some really serious misinformation.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:14:11 2014 No.35460

>>33555
Hell Lenin flat out said he was constructing a state capitalist system so that the concentration of capital to the hands of the state would annihilate the reactionary petit bourgeoisie. He explicitly said so and also noted that he considered the left marxists that disagreed infantile.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:16:10 2014 No.35477 >>32141 >and the top 1% of every country's respective citizens, are lined up and shot. In communist countries, a lot more than 1% of the people were killed.

>>	PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs Sun Feb 16 00:17:40 2014 No.35482 >>35460 Well he was fucking right.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:19:40 2014 No.35520

>>35482
I think history proved Bakunin's criticism right, and I should say I'm not much of an anarchist.

It goes without saying that managing the means of production is one breath away from owning them. Owning them tends to not lead to a desire to give them to someone else, like say the workers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:20:10 2014 No.35538 >>35477 And then the ones doing the shooting became the new 1%. Ive seen these threads on /lit/ a million times, and every time I cant believe how freely these assholes admit that massive force and repression are necessary for re-educating the masses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:21:10 2014 No.35560 >>35118 >game of life

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:21:10 2014 No.35561 File: 18 KB, 261x173, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >all the logical fallacies and /b/ tier behavior coming from that guy who thinks economics has something to do with evolution

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:21:10 2014 No.35562

>>35418
>don't have a choice but to exploit the worker's surplus value.
There's no such thing as surplus value.

>and what causes the boom and bust cycles (we're not even talking serious systemic crashes) are evil immoral capitalists who haven't accepted the virtues of capitalism that Mill described.
Central banks and fractional reserve banking causes booms and busts.

>as in using the resources that they have produced to invest into (primarilly) more capital goods and workers.
Yes which lowers prices and increases wages which increases living standards.
Marx kept saying the wages of workers would be kept on a subsistence level but what happened is the wages and living standards of workers in capitalist countries increase ginormously.

>that fall apart
Marxism is so incredibly wrong it's not even funny anymore.
All marxists do now is flat out lie when they KNOW their ideology is wrong.

They don't even believe in evolution, their entire ideology rests on social and economic constructionism.

It's flawed from the very beginning.

It's just pseudo-scientific garbage that anyone can see is bullshit. The fact anyone still takes what he said seriously saddens me.

This doesn't belong on the business board.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:21:40 2014 No.35548 >>32141 Dude get out of /biz/. Communist can't into business/financing. They are only interested in /gov/ so wait till moot makes a board for you.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:21:40 2014 No.35553

>>35477
>Communist countries
The supreme of lels

But we can at least agree we use the term to mean a different thing instead of fighting over which definition is right. It would be great if we could have a substantial conversation for ones instead of semantic one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:21:40 2014 No.35559 >>35520 Ownership is the right to manage. Marxists deal in actualities not formalities, and a wide range of Marxists actually attacked Lenin for making the party into a new bourgeoisie.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:22:40 2014 No.35574 >>35553 The typical "neutral" name in scholarship for those countries is "Soviet-style societies."

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:24:10 2014 No.35604

>>35548
Actually there is data that proves worker cooperatives are far more sustainable than capitalist enterprises

"[C]ooperatives tend to have a longer life than other types of enterprise, and thus a higher level of entrepreneurial sustainability. In [one study], the rate of survival of cooperatives after three years was 75 percent, whereas it was only 48 percent for all enterprises ... [and] after ten years, 44 percent of cooperatives were still in operation, whereas the ratio was only 20 percent for all enterprises"

So there's that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:25:10 2014 No.35619 >>35559 Not just the right to manage. I'd say it's also the right to exploit the proceeds of the productive process. And I know, I consider myself a marxist. I just want to give credit where it's due.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:26:40 2014 No.35622 File: 53 KB, 570x533, 1355102820156.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>35553 Supremest of lels? see pic at >>34036

>>	Bastiat !Kn4EP7uR7M Sun Feb 16 00:31:40 2014 No.35672 >Wasting your time on trolls >Wasting your time on collectivists

PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs Sun Feb 16 00:32:40 2014 No.35697

>>35520

Who gives a shit about the workers? Socialism is about power.

"Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer we use to smash the enemy." - The Great Helmsman

I can respect Stalinists, Maoists, Hoxhaists, tankies, and orthodox MLs. It's this fucking hippy-dippy left-libertarian scum I can't stand.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:38:40 2014 No.35776

>>35562
>There's no such thing as surplus value.

I disagree. From a materialist perspective there is very much such a thing as surplus value. You need to enter idealist lala land where value is an idea and not a material thing in itself to actually argue there is no such thing as surplus value. But in that case there is no value whatsoever.

For your information, exploiting the entirety of the surplus value of a worker is what we call giving him a subsistence wage in modern economics.

>Central banks and fractional reserve banking causes booms and busts.

I take it you never studied economics? It's universally accepted that boom and bust cycles or cyclical crashes are a phenomenon caused by the increased drop in demand for capital goods relative to the drop in demand for consumer goods.

Boom and bust cycles are not a thing in marxian economics, they are accepted by orthodox economists as well.

>Yes which lowers prices

Not necessarilly

>and increases wages

Never necessary unless there is a labor shortage which has only historically happened briefly during the industrial revolution and again when the new american continent was beginning to be populated.

>Marx kept saying the wages of workers would be kept on a subsistence level

Only if the state didn't interfere and mostly in regards to the unskilled workforce.. He was criticising the way capitalism by itself works. He wasn't saying it's impossible to tinker with it. By examining the countries with the lower unemployment percentages you will notice that these are the specific countries blocking the intensification of labor and commanding the labor market so that people don't end up with market wages due to the reserve army of labor.

>All marxists do now is flat out lie when they KNOW their ideology is wrong

Most people I know attribute ideas to marx that he specifically rejects in the first pages of his work and then shoot them down. Woop de doo. I can do that too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:41:10 2014 No.35818 >>35619 The technical and social relations of production are identical mate: the right to manage is the right to extract surplus.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:42:41 2014 No.35827
File: 106 KB, 393x500, 1382497076718.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm a die-hard Libertarian Capitalist, for the most part.

I've got to say, the only situation I see Marxist philosophies, especially the economic aspects, is if the scarcity of resources were to be eliminated entirely.

Once scarcity is virtually all but destroyed, Capitalism, as a whole system, will fall apart naturally, since it depends on scarcity to motivate its machinations. A Marxist society, without currency, without competition, without classes, can only exist once physical needs AND desires are able to be fully satiated using incredible technology that is to come.

Marx had a few good ideas, but fuck if they'd ever work in the current technological state of the world.

Any comment or criticism?

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:42:41 2014 No.35831

>>35622
That's engels' transitionary scheme and the reason the anarchocommunists broke from the marxists. Marx himself later said they were naive. It's certainly not a definition of communism. We know that because they also gave a definition of communism as a socialist, stateles system where money has been substituted by a non-exploitable standard of value and wherein due to the production being unrestrained by the inherent contradiction of labor and capital that plagues capitalism and as technology continually raises productivity. it will be possible to achieve a setting of abundance as the workers will be able to cover their needs without working much or at all.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:43:10 2014 No.35845

>>35697
>who gives a shit about the workers
Lol.

At least pretend you're an actual marxist. The entire point is the substantive liberation of the working class. Power is irrelevant as an end in itself and the only people that give a shit about it are left-nietzscheans.

Bastiat !Kn4EP7uR7M Sun Feb 16 00:45:40 2014 No.35867

>>35827
The economy would become services-based instead.

Sure, if there's no scarcity for living, there's the capacity to let people have at it like its air, but people will still value works of art and writing and video games and the rest whose production requires the proper incentives and capacity to finance.

>>	PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs Sun Feb 16 00:47:40 2014 No.35898 >>35845 I'm not a Marxist.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:48:40 2014 No.35913

>>35561
Awwww poor marxist baby. It must hurt that your arguments got demolished.

>evolution has nothing to do with economics

The core of marxism is social/economic constructionism.
Economics is the study of human behavior. Human beings have biological instincts that determines their behavior. Marx was wrong.

You have no refutation to this. Nobody wants you here.
Please swallow cyanide.

>>35604
>Actually there is data that proves worker cooperatives are far more sustainable than capitalist enterprises

If they were more sustainable and efficient they would be the dominant form of firm in the market.

But they aren't and they never will be.

>>35619
>I consider myself a marxist.
Why?
Science has already proven you people wrong.
Evolution does exist.
Human beings have instincts that determine their behavior.

>>35538
They're not even people. They have zero empathy. If they ever took over your government you need to murder them as quickly as possible.

They're deceptive motherfuckers they won't stop lying.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:50:11 2014 No.35938

>>35776
>From a materialist perspective there is very much such a thing as surplus value
Dialectical materialism is bullshit. Lol everything you say makes absolutely no sense yet you take it as fact.
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/

>and not a material thing in itself
AHAHAHHA HOLY SHIT
Value only exists because the human brain was there to value it. Value is extremely relative.

There is no objective value.

>exploiting the entirety of the surplus value of a worker
Look at all of these hilariously stupid explanations and excuses your brain makes up for why you're such a massive loser.
Employing someone, by definition raises their living standards. They had nothing before this.
Wages aren't dictated by the capitalist they come from the labour market. You seriously don't even know this?

>I take it you never studied economics?
I have, you haven't. Learn history you idiot.

> It's universally accepted
Awww that's cute. It must feel bad that people aren't believing your bullshit anymore.

>caused by the increased drop in demand for capital goods
No, they are caused by inflation distorting the structure of production.

>Not necessarilly
Always, in a deflationary free market currency, always. Look at the gilded age.

>Boom and bust cycles are not a thing in marxian economics
That's because marxist countries are in horrible depressions all the time lel

>Never necessary unless there is a labor shortage
That's not true at all. Look at the gilded age.

>He was criticising the way capitalism by itself works.
But he was wrong and doesn't believe in evolution.

I mean I could just stop right here if I wanted to. You're wrong. Evolution does exist, and human beings have biological instincts.

>that he specifically rejects in the first pages of his work
Kek
Do you even bomh bawerk?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx_and_the_Close_of_His_System

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:50:41 2014 No.35932

>>35867
mmmm. Indeed, I thought of that too. Between automation, abuse of the laws of physics, new technologies, rising efficiency, there would be some services that leak through. But an important aspect to remember is that technology will, one day, be far more than able to replicate the workings of the human mind. What we deem "soul" will also be part of this. Works of art might lose their meaning.

Not saying there won't be some services that would continue to exist, but the opportunities for old-style Capitalism will dry up, industry by industry, until it dies a natural sort of "evaporation."

The question, I feel, would be how exactly resources would be managed in a world without scarcity, without running it through some massive government entity. Obviously, we don't want it going all Star-Trek-Socialism on us. At least I don't.

>>	PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs Sun Feb 16 00:52:10 2014 No.35955 >>35938 >There is no objective value. That's philosophical statement that I bet you can't prove.

>>	Bastiat !Kn4EP7uR7M Sun Feb 16 00:52:10 2014 No.35967 >>35932 Why would there need be chaos and panic? If new technology drove down prices so far that there was hardly any scarcity, the cost of living would also come down.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:52:40 2014 No.35956 >>35827 Scarcity will always exist. You can only hope to minimize it, even with that new technology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:52:40 2014 No.35960 I an the 1%, and I just want to let you know that this will never happen, because the 99% wont allow it.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:55:10 2014 No.36000

>>35960
>Wife is ER doc
>well into 1%
>hipsters with Mao tattoos come into ER after being hit by car or drinking to much absinthe or some shit.
>They cry and beg and demand drugs and shit
>My wife would have her salary cut to nothing and a pistol in the back of the head if they came to power
>Asshole OP gets treated by a caring doctor, but just wants to line them up and shoot them

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:55:40 2014 No.35991 >>35831 >it will be possible to achieve a setting of abundance as the workers will be able to cover their needs without working much or at all. This just goes to show how naive people like you are.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:55:40 2014 No.35994

>>35956
Oh I could never dream of absolute eradication of scarcity. But like many things, it does not require actuality, only that people believe that it is so.

When people begin to believe that there is no scarcity, they'll begin to act, rationally, as if there WAS no scarcity.

>>35967
true, I suppose. I'm just wondering how people would continue to be lucid of the world around them in a world without need or want, economically.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:55:40 2014 No.35997 File: 801 KB, 250x170, 1389442139930.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >this entire thread

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:56:40 2014 No.36006

How many times does marxism have to be debunked?

There are seriously still people who believe in the labour theory of value?

How do you deal with the fact if you "got your surplus value back from the capitalists" it will not benefit you whatsoever(and even make you worse off) because prices would simply rise due to the fact no new goods have been produced to justify that new spending? Do you just ignore it?
And if you know it won't benefit you, then what exactly were the capitalists exploiting in the first place? Was there even any exploitation going on?

Marxists will never respond to this, they'll just ignore it exists like they ignore every damaging critique of their dogmatic ideology.

These people have severe damage to the part of their brain responsible for logic.

Also this isn't fucking business, this doesn't belong here.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:57:10 2014 No.36013

>>35827
Both sides essentially conceive post-capitalism the same way, we disagree on the means to achieve it. Which isn't surprising. I mean marxists and capitalists disagree amongst themselves in the first place.

Essentially marxists believe that the workers must also be the capitalists because otherwise the capital/labor contradiction won't allow us to reach relative post-scarcity.

Most austrians and the antikeynesians (and I know because I used to be one) actually argue against the leninist transitionary scheme of state-capitalism (and they do so effectively, for example von mises' calculation problem) or against socialdemocracy in which case they are underlining something that marxists agree with, essentially the futility (and lunacy) of an attempt to achieve substantive equality through redistribution in a system where the first allocation of goods is unequal and where it has to be so because the role of the producer of value and circulator of value are distinct. For us, right-libertarians view one side of the coin of capitalism, the production side.

>Marx had a few good ideas

Dailly reminder that marx spent his life analysing capitalism. Engels was the guy that was forming the plans of action for the most part. Marx cautiously avoided forming ambitious programs because they kind of contradicted his conception of dialectical materialism. When he did talk about it he was very skeptical towards the government (see the ghotta critique or on freedom of the press)

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 00:58:10 2014 No.36020 >>35955 Prove to me objective "value" exists kiddo.

>>	PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs Sun Feb 16 01:00:10 2014 No.36053 >>36020 I can't, but if we only stuck to statements that can be proven we'd all be solipsists. In other words, I don't need to, because I have this little thing called faith.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:00:40 2014 No.36047

>>35898
Then don't pretend to tell us what we believe if you may.

>>35991
Assume there is a factory that makes 10 applepies when 10 people work there for 8 hours a day. Assume that those 10 people need 10 applepies to survive (so fixed demand for applepies).

As you know technology raises productivity. That means that with newer technologies, new means of production these 10 people can produce the 10 applepies that they want in 5 hours instead. As technology improves we'll reach a point where the production process of applepies will either be completely or almost completely automated.

And that's what we call abundance/relative post scarcity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:01:10 2014 No.36059 >>36013 >and I know because I used to be one >I used to understand logic until I became a creationist heeheee

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:03:11 2014 No.36077

>>36047
Except when those 10 people each want 2 applepies a day because shit, i like applepies. And when their request for more applepies is refused, they go on strike, or lower production because they are sitting on their asses talking about how much they hate the commissar. Or they steal 2 of the applepies to trade on the black market for an extra diamond for their anniversary. Then of course the applepie factory falls apart, or somebody in these "new technologies" you are talking about does the same shit and the applepie factory runs out of parts. And lets not even talk about the graft from above. Or what happens when one of the applepie workers is found to harbor bourgeoise sympathies and is sent off to a gulag.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:03:40 2014 No.36076

>>36006
from the sticky:
>This board is for the discussion of topics related to business, economics, financial markets, securities, currencies (including cryptocurrencies), commodities, etc

This is about economics in general. Marxism, although also pertaining to general governmental philosophy (or lack-of-governmental, as it may be), is a very good discussion topic. Especially since this thread has evolved into an interesting direction that I'd like to keep travelling along.

>>36059
Well he could be pretty level-headed. I myself am a creationist, but believe things were created as if they were formed from the Big Bang. So it's not like there's not economic opponents that are both very logical and understanding.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:09:59 2014 No.36145 File: 236 KB, 1600x1200, fedoracam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>36006 FATCAM

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:10:28 2014 No.36151

>>36076
>This is about economics in general.
No, this board is for capitalist economics, BUSINESS ownership, entrepreneurship and the economics RELATING to these things. Socialism wants to destroy entrepreneurship. Do you go on /k/ and complain about guns? Do you go on /v/ and complain that video games are violent?

Communism is a political/government thing and does not belong here.

>is a very good discussion topic.
YES FOR FUCKING /POL/
Go back there.

Sage

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:10:58 2014 No.36155 >>35938 >Dialectical materialism is bullshit. Lol everything you say makes absolutely no sense yet you take it as fact. http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/ Many Marxist and Communist don't even believe in Dialectical materialism though

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:12:28 2014 No.36176 >>36145 Lel, is that seriously what marxists look like?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:13:28 2014 No.36185 File: 1.21 MB, 960x722, fatcam.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>36176 Its a notable ancap shitposter from /int/, I recognised his style and assumed it was him.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:13:28 2014 No.36186 >>36151 >/POL/ /pol/ is a stupid rightwinger circlejerk, we need a left wing politics board.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:13:58 2014 No.36195 >>36155 >Many Marxist and Communist don't even believe in Dialectical materialism though They don't believe in the core of their ideology? This shit keeps getting better and better.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:14:14 2014 No.36208 >>36176 that's the infamous libcap 'cameron' from /int/

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:14:44 2014 No.36200 >>36186 /int/ has decent political conversations sometimes

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:15:14 2014 No.36221

>>35938
Dialectical materialism is irrelevant. I doubt you can prove it's bullshit but it has nothing to do with the materialist conception of value. Do you mean to say that materialism is bullshit? That ideas do not reflect mater but it is in fact mater that reflects ideas? That ideas exist as things in themselves disconnected from the empirical environment?

I'm sorry but the very fundamental basis of modern science was that idealism is bullshit. That's the entire point of the logical positivism to which you unknowingly ascribe to.

>Value only exists because the human brain was there to value it

Hello idealism. So you're saying that value can exists separately from a thing or sensuous human activity? That there can be value without a commodity? Well I say that the commodity is value, is wealth.

What you're most likely referring to is use-value, which marxists agree is relative.

>Employing someone, by definition raises their living standards

So is having a serf. It raises his living standards because he would otherwise starve not owning any land. Fortunately the idea that he will either starve or be a serf was proven to be a false dichotomy.

The point in your example, considering you are shifting the goal posts was that the living conditions of the worker will increase in time, which I dispute.

>Wages aren't dictated by the capitalist they come from the labour market

Did you read my post? No you didn't, because that's what I said.

>No, they are caused by inflation distorting the structure of production.

Inflation has nothing to do with boom and bust cycles. There were boom and bust cycles even during the inception of capitalism. Even austrians wouldn't attempt to ascribe them to inflation and they love inflation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:16:14 2014 No.36235 >>36195 Most ARE materialist but there is a fair amount which disavow dialectics specifically.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:16:44 2014 No.36229 >>36185 Excep I'm not an ancap not do I go on /int/. Are you seriously this butthurt that your arguments got destroyed and you couldn't reply? It's sad we made you resort to this

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:16:44 2014 No.36230 >>36186 i could say where the best discussion on 4chan is but i don't want wanks shitting on it.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:16:44 2014 No.36231

>>36221
>That's because marxist countries are in horrible depressions all the time lel
I mean it's not a marxian concept faggot. There has never been any marxist country to gauge whether boom and bust cycles would occur, and I see no reason why they shouldn't.

>That's not true at all. Look at the gilded age.
You literally just gave me as an example the exception I noted, you realise that, right?

>But he was wrong and doesn't believe in evolution.

U wot nao m8. Are you imrpovising?

>Evolution does exist

Agreed

>human beings have biological instincts.

You don't say?

>Bohm bawerk

I've read bawerk and I stand by my initial assesment.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:17:14 2014 No.36244 >>35604 >Build commune >Go away

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:17:14 2014 No.36245 >>36059 >personal attacks are the new logic And I say that your perception of reality is flawed and mine properly captures it instead. What now?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:18:14 2014 No.36246 >>36230 Shut up cunt, shut up now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:18:14 2014 No.36247 >>36229 I'm not arguing with anyone, I just recognised Fatcam and wanted to ruse him

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:23:14 2014 No.36302

>>36186
>we need a left wing politics board.
It's called reddit.

>>36247
>>36208
>IT'S YOU I KNOW IT'S YOU
Lol oh god you sure are rusing me. I'm definitely that guy for sure.

Why won't you respond to any of my arguments?
Why fucking TOLD does one person have to get?

>>36245
I'm saying he was never an austrian.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:23:44 2014 No.36298

>>36077
Nope, if they want more applepies, they will start producing more applepies because they own the means of production and they can do what they want with them.

>And when their request for more applepies is refused

By whom? Why would they need to request more applepies in the first place when they can just make them or alternatively have every incentive to cover that demand if they are not the ones that desire them?

That's like saying "well if the capitalist decides to refuse to supply the demand".

Well ok, if he's insane he might.

> how much they hate the commissar

I'm a socialist, could we please discuss socialism and not command economies? I agree command economies are grossly inefficient. What I said only applies to socialism/communism. If the workers aren't also the capitalists then what I said simply doesn't work at all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:25:44 2014 No.36310 >>36302 There's a bunch of people here now that this thread has become a pot of laffs

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:28:44 2014 No.36329

>>36302
You're talking to me. I posted both posts.

I was an austrian and I'm now a libertarian marxist. I was very influenced by the individualist/egoist anarchists as well, so I never really changed my ideals. I just decided that capitalism doesn't serve them well enough.

You don't need to view the world in black and white, you know. There are a lot of mutualists and free market socialists that used to be austrians or neoclassicists. It's probably the biggest anarchocommunist fraction on the internet.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:30:44 2014 No.36340

>>35418
>>35776

Good posts comrade and good thread OP. You can explain things till you're blue in the face but these residual Cold War meme brainwashed Western labor aristocrats will never get it, at least until the material conditions change their mind.

>>36155
>>36195

Those are called revisionists.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:30:44 2014 No.36342

>>36221
>I doubt you can prove it's bullshit
Even marxists know it's bullshit.
Read that website.

>That ideas do not reflect mater but it is in fact mater that reflects ideas?
More postmodern word salad that makes absolutely no sense. Congratulations on your stupidity..

>idealism is bullshit.
I'm not an idealist you fucking retard, strawman harder.

>That there can be value without a commodity?
YES. You can value something that has not been created yet in your mind.

>Well I say that the commodity is value, is wealth.
That's your subjective valuation, another person may not value it as much as you do.

>What you're most likely referring to is use-value,
There is only one type of value.

>So is having a serf.
No actually that makes them better off. Voluntary working for someone makes you better off and increases wealth in a society. You want people to be actual slaves.

>which I dispute.
It's objectively correct are you not well fed, clothed and have shelter and a computer?

>Inflation has nothing to do with boom and bust cycles
It has EVERYTHING to do with them
Every single boom was caused by monetary inflation of some sort distorting production structures.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:31:44 2014 No.36348 >>36302 >It's called reddit. but I hate reddits format

>>	PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs Sun Feb 16 01:33:44 2014 No.36364 >>36342 >You want people to be actual slaves. "people", not people.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:34:44 2014 No.36371

>>36310
>There's a bunch of people here now that this thread has become a pot of laffs
I know, lel, marxism is just that embarrassing.

>>36340
>at least until the material conditions change their mind.
Yeah how dare those evil capitalists raise our living standards and prove marx wrong.

>Those are called revisionists.
Yes damn those people using logic to figure out that marxism is a load of shit.

>>36329
>I was an austrian and I'm now a libertarian marxist.
I extremely doubt that. Marxists turn into libertarians not the other way around. Pretty sure you never understood austrian theory and or are just a liar.

You people can't even respond to the fact that taking over factories will not benefit you.

Lol kek

PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs Sun Feb 16 01:36:44 2014 No.36383
File: 241 KB, 1200x808, 13_51-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>36340

>You can explain things till you're blue in the face but these residual Cold War meme brainwashed Western labor aristocrats will never get it, at least until the material conditions change their mind.

But will they change in the direction you want?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:37:14 2014 No.36397 GO BACK TO FUCKING /POL/

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:38:14 2014 No.36409

>>36231
>There has never been any marxist country
>socialism has never been tried
MY SIDES

>the exception I noted
>THE BIGGEST EXAMPLE EVER DOESN'T COUNT
This is beyond hilarious.
Anyway if you ignore that fact, wages still rose dramatically in the post war period in america.
Wages rose all over the world in countries that actually tried capitalism.
>>Evolution does exist
>Agreed
Except you don't.

>>human beings have biological instincts.
>You don't say?
Which your ideology denies.

>I've read bawerk
Then why was he wrong?

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:42:15 2014 No.36441
File: 474 KB, 1959x1306, skc04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>36383

That's the important question. As long as the communist states hold out against reactionism and revisionism the fascist and "free" bourgeois states will continually experience worsening and worsening crises and hopefully will wind up rejecting capitalism as well.

>>36371

>Raise our living standards
Note how the living standards of the Chinese and the Soviets increased rapidly during the non-revisionist periods. Also pic related.

>prove marx wrong

top kek, please explain

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:48:45 2014 No.36473

>>36441
>Note how the living standards of the Chinese and the Soviets increased rapidly during the non-revisionist periods.
Are you being sarcastic?
Because that's an objective fact. I'm on my phone right now but look at this graph:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58976000/gif/_58976596_dollar_day_464.gif
Does this make you angry?

>top kek, please explain
Please stop using memes created by people you hate and want to murder. Go back to revleft, shitstain.

>please explain
Because wages will continue to rise and living standards will continue to go up, as was seen in the third world the past few decades.

>image
Before that they were living in even worse poverty on farms.
If only india was actually capitalist and not a corrupt inflationary shithole.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:49:45 2014 No.36491

How many times does marxism have to be debunked?

There are seriously still people who believe in the labour theory of value?

How do you deal with the fact if you "got your surplus value back from the capitalists" it will not benefit you whatsoever(and even make you worse off) because prices would simply rise due to the fact no new goods have been produced to justify that new spending? Do you just ignore it?
And if you know it won't benefit you, then what exactly were the capitalists exploiting in the first place? Was there even any exploitation going on?

Marxists will never respond to this, they'll just ignore it exists like they ignore every damaging critique of their dogmatic ideology.

These people have severe damage to the part of their brain responsible for logic.

Also this isn't fucking business, this doesn't belong here.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:50:45 2014 No.36494

>>36342
>More postmodern word salad

Post-modernists agree with you fucktard. I'm a modernist. This is the idealist/materialist distinction which is very basic. The rational positivists (the people that created the scientific method) reject idealism. If you follow an idealist conception of economics then you must agree that they are also unfalsifiable and not a science. Hayek admitted to that, exactly because he was an idealist.

>Even marxists know it's bullshit
Althusserian marxists. Post-modernists.

How about you give an argument so that I can tell you how wrong and ignorant you are instead of hiding behind a site specifically catering to your bias?

>I'm not an idealist you fucking retard

Oh god, this is too much fun. You accept an idealist conception of both freedom and value but you are not an idealist.

>YES. You can value something that has not been created yet in your mind.

Then we should stop producing stuff. I mean much ado about nothing. We can already have value *in our heads*.

Totally not an idealist notion.

>That's your subjective valuation
Ha ha. No m8, it goes without saying that the commodity is wealth, is value. It's not a quality we recognise to it. Yours is the metaphysical belief, namely that value is an idea that is granted to the object ex nihilo, without proving to me the process through which your subjective desires grant value to an object. I believe what I can emprically gauge, namely that value or wealth *is* a commodity, a thing which 1. Exists and 2. Is desired, both qualities being verifiable.

>another person may not value it as much as you do.

The utility of the object is relative to each person and irrelevant to anything but price. No matter how much you desire a TV it won't transmutate into two TVs. You will not have produced more value just by willing it.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:51:45 2014 No.36505

>>36494
>No actually that makes them better off. Voluntary working for someone makes you better off and increases wealth in a society

Just like the serf. Voluntary working for a landlord made him better off and increased wealth in society. Of course he could own the land and be even more better off while also producing wealth for society.

>You want people to be actual slaves.
>Being the owner of yourself, your labor and the value you produce means you're a slave
>Being one of the owner of yourself while also renting yourself to a master, not owning your labor or the value you produce make your free
Golden logic.

>It's objectively correct are you not well fed, clothed and have shelter and a computer?

>Implying marx didn't explicitly state capitalismb is miles ahead any previous systems and produces unparalleled wealth which for the first time improved the living conditions of the majority of people.

Noting how a system has issues and that there might be better ways of socioeconomical organisation does not preclude accepting the positive aspects of that system and it doesn't mean you can't tinker with it to increase its utility. I'm also a person that is living in one of the by far most left-leaning countries on earth, so there is that. Why don't you ask someone living in greece or latin america or india how well fed they are.

Oh I forgot. Not capitalist enough. That's not an unfalsifiable assertion at all.

>Every single boom was caused by monetary inflation of some sort distorting production structures.

You are not referring to boom and bust cycles. You are referring to the major depressions. Those were caused by a combination of factors including artificial inflation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:52:45 2014 No.36516 File: 439 KB, 626x893, 1382816349749.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>32141 >thats right...goy...

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:54:14 2014 No.36527

>>36473

What are the "developing countries" surveyed? How does the associated cost of living in those countries vary over time? A lot goes unsaid with that one.

>>36491

>How many times does marxism have to be debunked?

Once, but it hasn't been, as it is a useful scientific way of analyzing society and economics.

>How do you deal with the fact if you "got your surplus value back from the capitalists" it will not benefit you whatsoever(and even make you worse off) because prices would simply rise due to the fact no new goods have been produced to justify that new spending? Do you just ignore it?

This is not an unshakeable fact as you make it out to be. People assert this but they fail to prove it. Maybe you can try.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:58:14 2014 No.36557

>>36409
>MY SIDES

Give me one example of a country that practiced socialism, i.e. where the workers owned and managed the means of production and where they owned the capital they produced. I will immediately acknowledge it and rescind my argument.

>Anyway if you ignore that fact, wages still rose dramatically in the post war period

You mean during the 4 terms of that guy that introduced the new deal? Ok.

By the way mentioning the exception doesn't mean "it doesn't count", it means that my framework can explain it, it was the first stage of the evolution of capitalism. Wages rose because there was a labor shortage while there was also the massive initial growth of a capitalism that has not yet supplied the existing demand. My point isn't that that can't happen, in fact it's that it necessarilly happens but that it doesn't characterise later stage capitalism when the labor shortage has ended (due in part to the intensification of labor of the workers, why produce 10 apples with 5 workers when you can have one worker work 5 times as much?) and the market exerts steady downwards pressures on the wages because of it.

>Except you don't.

I don't understand this. I repeat, are you improvising? Why wouldn't I believe in evolution? Hell, the entire point of the dialectical part of dialectical materialism is that societies are not static and unchangeable but in fact evolve.

>Which your ideology denies.
>marxism
>ideology
marx is spinning in his grave. And no my belief system doesn't preclude biological instincts. In fact I'm pretty sure Marx (influenced by feuerbach) very much believed our needs defined us.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 01:59:14 2014 No.36558

>>36527
>How does the associated cost of living in those countries vary over time?
It's adjusted for inflation and price increases. Does this anger you?

You can even see this in the emerging middle class in these countries.
There will no no marxist revolution.

>as it is a useful scientific way
If it was scientific it wouldn't fail every single time it has been tried.
If it was scientific wages would go down to a subsistence level and there would be an actual need for a revolution of some sort.

>This is not an unshakeable fact as you make it out to be.
Yes, yes it is.
No new resources will have been created, you end up with exactly nothing.

There is no surplus value at all.

>fail to prove it.
Really? Care to tell me how resources are not finite and scarce?

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:00:44 2014 No.36573

>>36527

Also just to elaborate, even if it were necessarily true that a rise in wage corresponds to a proportionate rise in prices in a free market system, under communism the prices would not be fixed by the market. Businesses would not need to be profitable in order to survive, because nobody like a bank or landlord claims them for themselves once they "go under"; they perpetually remain the property of the state and people.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:01:44 2014 No.36581 >>36409 Oh I forgot >Then why was he wrong? Give me an argument and I'll give you my refutation or a counter-argument. You obviously do not expect me to write a critique of the entire book.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:04:44 2014 No.36615 >>32141 > the only decent economic school is Marxist and all capitalism has ever done has made a tiny elite incredibly rich and powerful from the labor of the masses. Dat irony.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:05:03 2014 No.36624

>>36527
>How does the associated cost of living in those countries vary over time?
It's adjusted for inflation and price increases. Does this anger you?

You can even see this in the emerging middle class in these countries.
There will no no marxist revolution.

>as it is a useful scientific way
If it was scientific it wouldn't fail every single time it has been tried.
If it was scientific wages would go down to a subsistence level and there would be an actual need for a revolution of some sort.

>This is not an unshakeable fact as you make it out to be.
Yes, yes it is.
No new resources will have been created, you end up with exactly nothing.

There is no surplus value at all.

>fail to prove it.
Really? Care to tell me how resources are not finite and scarce.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:06:31 2014 No.36635

>>36491
>How do you deal with the fact if you "got your surplus value back from the capitalists"

In a capitalist system that would amount to keynesianism or socialdemocracy and it's not up to the marxists to get into the debate about redistributative policies and whether they incentivise production (through the increased demand) or block it (because they create investment barriers). We believe both ideas are partially true.

Marxists and socialists in general believe that the role of the worker (who creates capital with his labor) and capitalist (who appropriates and then exploits that capital through reinvestments) should be combined in the same people.

We believe it is self-evident that would very much benefit the workers who are no longer determined in their financial life by a boss, who are no longer selling pieces of their liberty to someone else to excercise and who now own what they produce. We also believe it would similarly benefit the petit bourgeoisie that though part capitalist also works and would no longer have the entire burden of investment on its head.

>This isn't business
I'd say that alternative ways of organising financial life and enterprises is relevant with business.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:07:31 2014 No.36636

>>36558
>>36624

Which countries are they surveying? Also, if capitalism is so great then why are the economies of the first world stagnating and collapsing one by one? As the Chinese middle class grows the American middle class shrinks. What's the cause of that, under your bourgeois understanding?

You're strawmanning like a Kansas corn farmer. Resources are of course finite. However, a more equitable division of labor value would result in a more equitable share of use-value among the people.

Wages do go down to a subsistence level under capitalism, in the third world nations, as their labor value is exported overseas to the first world. Lenin spoke of this phenomenon.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:11:01 2014 No.36677

>>36636
>Why are there business cycles
Lately it's been artificially low interest rates.
>more equitable
what the fuck does this actually mean
>as their labor value is exported overseas
Maybe because they can use the money more than the extremely small fraction of the iphone they're making?

You're basically saying "some people have it rough right now and that's bad, so end capitalism"

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:12:31 2014 No.36681

>>36557
>i.e. where the workers owned and managed the means of production and where they owned the capital they produced
There are none like that. Why because it's physically impossible.
There are plenty of countries that have tried marxism though.

>You mean during the 4 terms of that guy that introduced the new deal?
LEL
Most of the new deal programs and regulations were cut, spending, taxes were dramatically slashed, this resulted in the most productive year in american history and the rising of wages for years after that, until 1971 of course when nixon got us off the gold standard.

>it was the first stage of the evolution of capitalism.
KEK

>Wages rose because there was a labor shortage
No there wasn't.
If there was a labour shortage why did production dramatically increase? Why do wages increase everywhere else in the world when they introduce freer markets?

>later stage capitalism
You people really sound like religious fundamentalists clinging onto your theories.

>due in part to the intensification of labor of the workers, why produce 10 apples with 5 workers when you can have one worker work 5 times as much?
Because then you would be forced to provide them with higher wages if you wanted them to work harder?
kek

> Hell, the entire point of the dialectical part of dialectical materialism is that societies are not static and unchangeable but in fact evolve.
I'm talking about biological evolution. Not marxist pseudoscience.

>And no my belief system doesn't preclude biological instincts.
According to you people, there is no human nature(instincts) and all human behavior is socially and economically constructed.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:13:31 2014 No.36690

>>36573
>they perpetually remain the property of the state and people.
Lol okay so inefficient firms will stay in business and that capital will never get reallocated to more productive firms.

Kind of sounds like the system we have now.

My god are you people ever stupid.

Do you even know the economic calculation problem?
>the state and people.
The state is not the people.

>>36635
>who appropriates and then exploits that capital through reinvestments
The capitalist makes the worker actually productive. Without the machines he has he is only able to produce very little.

>We believe it is self-evident that would very much benefit the workers who are no longer determined in their financial life by a boss, who are no longer selling pieces of their liberty to someone else to excercise and who now own what they produce
You don't understand, idiot.
You're just saying "he wouldn't have to do this anymore"
Why?

He wouldn't get any more goods and services than he ALREADY fucking has.

He wouldn't be better off materially.

>We also believe it would similarly benefit the petit bourgeoisie that though part capitalist also works and would no longer have the entire burden of investment on its head.
It's absolutely hilarious you think you can just make risk go away.
top lel

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:16:01 2014 No.36712

>>36677

So you think that eventually once we work out all the "kinks" of interest rates, money printing, etc., that the nations of the world will gradually increase in employment rate and quality of life? Interesting.

"more equitable" means closer to being equal. So if Bob has 4 cookies and Alice has 6 cookies, that is a more equitable distribution of cookies than Bob having 3 and Alice having 7.

Well, some people have it very rough: starving to death, not being able to afford medicine, being shot from economic imperialist wars, etc. I would like the people of the earth to prosper more if possible.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:18:02 2014 No.36727

>>36712
>your first statement
This is what has actually happened in history
>inb4 b-b-but muh anecdote

>closer to being equal
Why is this a good thing, especially given that resources are scarce?

>I would like poor people to prosper more
Why does that have to include you stealing money from me?

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:19:31 2014 No.36735

>>36505
>Voluntary working for a landlord made him better off
Except feudalism wasn't voluntary you fucking idiot.

>>Being the owner of yourself, your labor and the value you produce means you're a slave
That's the definition of a free market. Marxism would have my labour taken away from me by force.

>Implying marx didn't explicitly state capitalismb is miles ahead any previous systems and produces unparalleled wealth which for the first time improved the living conditions of the majority of people.
and you think this is bad, why?
You people say that capitalism is horrible as well? lol
Make up your minds.

>I'm also a person that is living in one of the by far most left-leaning countries on earth
You in Venezuela? lol

>Why don't you ask someone living in greece or latin america or india how well fed they are.
Because those are statist shitholes with no free markets whatsoever?
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

>That's not an unfalsifiable assertion at all.
They're not even close to being capitalist. Socialized money is not capitalism, it's 1/2 of every single transaction.

>You are not referring to boom and bust cycles. You are referring to the major depressions.
Wrong. Every single boom and bust.
Take the 19th century for example:
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Panics

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:22:01 2014 No.36778 File: 31 KB, 524x600, 1372395758693.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >angsty teenagers talking about communism Since none of you commies were alive back in the 80s, here's this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN3z3eSVG7A

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:23:02 2014 No.36787

>>36690

Sometimes non profitable ventures are beneficial to society, like socialized healthcare.

To my understanding the economic calculation problem states that one could not figure out the ideal prices for goods without a free market system. Am I on the mark? Well in bourgeois thinking ideal means profitable, so this may be true for the bourgeoisie. However like I said good things aren't always profitable. So maybe the maximum profit could not be found without allowing the market to decide, but maybe that's not always a good thing.

The state is a mechanism for enforcing property relations, among other things. The state would be enforcing communal property relations rather than private ones. In this case the state would be a tool of the masses rather than a tool of the bourgeoisie.

>>36727

>Why is this a good thing, especially given that resources are scarce?

It would be better for the majority of people at the expense of the minority, at least in the short run. In the long run, it would be better for society as a whole.

>Why does that have to include you stealing money from me?

Because it's only "your money" under capitalist logic. Also, I believe in utilitarian morality, ends justify the means kind of stuff.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:24:01 2014 No.36798 Stop bumping this shit thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:26:31 2014 No.36809 >>36798 Good idea.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:26:31 2014 No.36811
File: 1.70 MB, 1152x1536, nice_average_dwelling_idiot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>32141

Ah, fuck. I was hoping you retarded faggots wouldn't follow us from /pol/.

Here's a little experiment for you:

Look at any average vanilla "middle class" suburban neighborhood in the United States, at pretty much any period in history since the creation of Marxism.

Then do the same thing for any other nation, at any other time, from pseudo-socialist Europe to full-on Communist 1970 USSR or post-war North Korea, if you dare.

The difference in the standard of living is immediate proof that you are a fucking idiot, and your "tiny elite" argument is a straw man.

Now run along and find another way to deal with the fact that you are useless and unsuccessful.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:27:01 2014 No.36827 >>36787 >It's better because it's better nice circular argument there >because it's not "your" money Then who's money is it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:28:02 2014 No.36842 >>36787 >Because it's only "your money" under capitalist logic. Also, I believe in utilitarian morality, ends justify the means kind of stuff. What are natural rights?

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:32:02 2014 No.36876

>>36787
>Sometimes non profitable ventures are beneficial to society
Sure, but that doesn't mean we have to use violence against people to achieve them.

>like socialized healthcare.
Healthcare was dramatically cheaper than it was now when we had a total free market in healthcare. You would work for one day and have unlimited healthcare for a year. It would be even cheaper now due to the fact prices go down in free markets with deflationary currencies.
http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

Enjoy desiring slavery and bureaucracy.

>bourgeois
Oh god you're actually using that word.

>Well in bourgeois thinking ideal means profitable, so this may be true for the bourgeoisie.
Nothing to do with the ECP at all.
The prices for capital goods need to be calculated to plan the structure of production effectively. This is impossible in socialism, that's why the ussr has to constantly copy the prices in the western world to eve
Even then they had horrible shortages and waste.
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

>The state is a mechanism for enforcing property relations, among other things.
Nah, those relations exist without the state and are not socially constructed.

>The state would be enforcing communal property relations rather than private ones.
Yes and that would have to be violently enforced because people don't do that naturally.

>In this case the state would be a tool of the masses rather than a tool of the bourgeoisie.
The state is a tool of violence and oppression, that's it. It doesn't help anybody.

>Because it's only "your money" under capitalist logic.
Not him, but no, it IS his fucking money. He voluntarily traded for it.

Get the fuck off the business board you marxist piece of shit.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:32:02 2014 No.36882

>>36811

Then, do the same thing for a third world country, which is exploited to give your first world home it's relative extravagance. Oh but capitalism only looks good in the first world, so let's focus on that instead.

>>36827

It's better because it makes more people more happy; in other words it increases the total happiness on the earth. I place people's happiness as a good thing.

>>36842

>What are natural rights?
That is exactly the capitalist logic I was referring to. Good job anon. Everything bad that happens as a result of capitalism is alright because it doesn't violate any natural rights. But let me give you an example of why natural rights is a flimsy concept:

>everyone has the inalienable natural right to life
>person A points a gun at person B, ready to shoot in aggression
>person B points a gun back at B, ready to shoot in defense

In either case someone needs to violate natural rights in order to "preserve" their own natural rights. You can say someone gives up their natural rights by offending someone else's but then they aren't so "natural" and "inalienable" after all are they?

Also like I said I follow utilitarianism not the deontology of natural rights.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:34:31 2014 No.36898

>>36681
>There are none like that. Why because it's physically impossible.

>what are coops

>There are plenty of countries that have tried marxism though.

That is marxism. That is socialism. That is what marx called first-stage communism.

>taxes were dramatically slashed

Are we talking about the same period the maximum income taxes reached 90%?

Theoretically the gold standard was not functional since the thirties. Part of Roosevelt's policies rendered it a formality.

>KEK

Excuse me, can you stop being an obnoxious tool for a while? Was it the last?

>No there wasn't.

Are you kidding me? Are you saying that there was no labor shortage when there were literally not enough people on the US to work and they had to attract them from Europe?

>why did production dramatically increase?

This is a joke, right? Because they were trying to supply the initial demand? Because they were in fact attracting workers from europe? They had a local labor shortage, but workers existed and they slowly got them on board.

>Why do wages increase everywhere else in the world when they introduce freer markets?

When did that happen? I have several examples of the opposite in mind. Most importantly why would that happen when you have a surplus of labour? That would go against the law of demand and supply applied to the labor market.

Theoretically you could raise the wages in that case, but why would you?

>You people really sound like religious fundamentalists

So you prefer simplistic, easy-to-digest theories. Ok.

>Because then you would be forced to provide them with higher wages if you wanted them to work harder?

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Excuse me. I didn't hear you over the sound of my labor surplus. I have two unemployed. The entire economy needs one. I offer him 5$ and intensify his labor. But by all means he can starve if he feels like it.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:35:31 2014 No.36910

>>36898

>Not marxist pseudoscience.

Oh. So societies don't evolve. We're still living in a slave-owning society. Ok.

>I'm talking about biological evolution

And why would marxists reject darwinism?

>According to you people, there is no human nature

Are you crazy?

>all human behavior is socially and economically constructed.

You are crazy.

>tfw the need to eat is a social construct

>>36735
Actually it was in a lot of cases. Especially in byzantium. In other cases you could still make the same utilitarian argument regardless. The serf chose to work the lords land in exchange for part of his proceeds and the justice and security that the lord provided.

>Marxism would have my labour taken away from me by force

No, marxism is making sure noone exists to do so.

>You people say that capitalism is horrible as well?
No. We're saying that even though it's better than everything that has existed before it is plagued by inherent contradictions and there are better ways to socially organise.

>You in Venezuela? lol

No, I'm in glorious nordicland.

Also, lol. That list puts us near the top and if you poor austrians took two looks at our labour laws you would commit suicide.

>They're not even close to being capitalist

Today I finally understood. Greece and india have abolished dependent employment.

>Wrong. Every single boom and bust.

You do understand that the austrian view on these things is fringe, right? Even Friedman rejects it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:35:31 2014 No.36912 >>36473 >http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58976000/gif/_58976596_dollar_day_464.gif Also that graph doesn't even address the time periods I referenced, which was up to and including Stalin's USSR and Mao's China.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:36:31 2014 No.36924 >>36882 >It makes more people happy On what basis? What should I care that I have no more than anybody else?

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:39:31 2014 No.36955

>>36924

So are you now admitting that capitalism doesn't lead to economic equality?

Anyway I think if people had equal wealth the median standard of living would increase and people could pursue their interests more, suffer less, and not be shot in wars of economic imperialism like the US is always engaged in. It's not about comparing wealth to others, it's about allowing people to taste the fruits of society and life in general.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:42:31 2014 No.36979

>>36690
>Without the machines he has he is only able to produce very little

The machines are capital goods. Capital goods are created by workers like all other goods. Nothing stops the workers that need them from buying machines from the workers that made them.

>You don't understand, idiot.

Please act like an adult if you want to be taken seriously. I have no problem in discussing this with you, but there is no point if you approach it in bad faith.

I don't understand what you mean by why. I believe that liberty exists in whole in a person or doesn't exist at all. I believe in freedom therefore I reject a system where a person has to sell part of his right to self-determinate to a capitalist in order to survive.

>He wouldn't get any more goods and services than he ALREADY fucking has.

Why? Did production stop? Don't the workers have an (increased) incentive to supply the existing demand of a society for profit? Wouldn't keeping the entirety of that profit mean that they are better off materially than if someone else appropriated the sweat of their brow?

>It's absolutely hilarious you think you can just make risk go away.

I can't make risk go away and I did not imply that I can. However if all workers are also the owners then that risk is divided between them so that it doesn't solely burden one person and is in fact very limited for the lot of them.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:44:31 2014 No.37013
File: 1.79 MB, 900x1137, 1386573405403.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>36882
>In either case someone needs to violate natural rights in order to "preserve" their own natural rights

There's nothing about B shooting A that is a violation of natural rights. When A decided to raise a weapon, initiating force, B was justified in defending himself.

This is why I believe all socialists can be euthanized without any ethical concerns. The act of being a socialist is a violation of the initiation of force. Socialism is predicated on the use coercive force to meet its ends -- so every socialist is in effect raising a gun at peaceful individuals who do not wish to enrich the socialists with their slave labor.

All socialists can be killed in self defense at any time, any place. It does not matter what their age is, what their race, their education level, gender or relative power. It is always a noble act to kill them, and it is always justified as self defense.

Every socialist deserves two in the spaghetti, even you. I literally hope you die a painful death.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:45:01 2014 No.37025

>>36955
Since when has any capitalism claimed that capitalism led to economic equality? Since when has any (non-keynesian) capitalist said anything regarding the "right" level of capital accumulation?

>if people had equal wealth, the median would increase
This is certainly not what would happen; instead everybody would be poor

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:47:01 2014 No.37042 File: 2.58 MB, 280x250, 1388362784696.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>37013 hahaha excellent

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:48:01 2014 No.37053

>>36842
There are no natural rights, and I'm a libertarian.

>>36882
>which is exploited to give your first world home it's relative extravagance
Not him, but no. The third world was always a poverty filled shithole, they only got a rise in living standards over the past few decades thanks to introduction of freer markets. Does this upset you?

>Oh but capitalism only looks good in the first world,
Capitalism is turning every country on earth into the first world.

>It's better because it makes more people more happy; in other words it increases the total happiness on the earth.
>IF WE FORCE PEOPLE TO BE HAPPY AT THE POINT OF A GUN THEY'LL BE HAPPY
Lol holy shit I'm so glad I'm not you. How brainwashed can you get?

>In either case someone needs to violate natural rights in order to "preserve" their own natural rights.
I don't believe in natural rights but that proposition is absurd.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:49:01 2014 No.37059 >>37013 By shooting A, B is violating A's natural right to life. But maybe I shouldn't argue with you because you actually sound pretty badass and edgy so you've got me really scared for now. >>37025 That's quite a leap, also mathematically false.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:51:32 2014 No.37071 File: 199 KB, 675x1024, 1324152578885.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>37059 >you actually sound pretty badass damn straight

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:52:01 2014 No.37078 >>37053 Your view of the physical world is too different, I would say delusional; we don't have common ground to start from. Although it's interesting to hear a libertarian say he doesn't believe in natural rights.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:53:01 2014 No.37087

>>37013
>Your rights end where my feelings begin
>Your right topolitical affiliation does not extend to what I don't agree with.
>Your right to free speech literally oppresses me

Is this like a bizarro version of feminazi rhetorics?

Why am I bothering when you're clearly underage?

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:56:01 2014 No.37113

>what are coops
Things that prove my point. Voting doesn't mean you own something. You don't get to control it and decide what you want done with it. Also coops are very rare. If they were productive they would dominate the market.

>That is what marx called first-stage communism
Yes and it was a distaster lol

>Are we talking about the same period the maximum income taxes reached 90%?
But they weren't even close to being that high. lol
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf
Taxes for the majority of people were very low and taxes on the rich as well.

>Theoretically the gold standard was not functional since the thirties.
We were still on a semi-gold standard and usa still had to pay it's debt in gold. Now we're on the petrodollar system, you fucking idiot.

>They had a local labor shortage, but workers existed and they slowly got them on board.
Yes and ever after your so called "labour shortage" wages still dramatically increase even into the 20th century.

>When did that happen?
You're kidding right?
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58976000/gif/_58976596_dollar_day_464.gif

>but why would you?
The labour market forces you to?

>Oh. So societies don't evolve
They change, they don't "evolve for the better" in any objective way. Some societies go back towards authoritarianism.

>And why would marxists reject darwinism?
Yes you fucking idiot. Ever hear of base and superstructure? I thought the economic system is what dictates all human behavior?
I thought the mode of production is what dictates human behavior and not instincts?

Well what is it?

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:57:01 2014 No.37125

>>36979
>Capital goods are created by workers like all other goods

>Nothing stops the workers that need them from buying machines from the workers that made them.
Then why don't they?
Oh wait that's right because they wouldn't be able to plan the structure of production.

>Please act like an adult
But you're a literal marxist lol

>I reject a system where a person has to sell part of his right to self-determinate to a capitalist in order to survive.
Holy shit, you wouldn't benefit whatsoever from getting surplus value back. You know this now. Why the fuck do you even give a shit you moron?

There's no magic solution to scarcity.

>Did production stop?
No.

>Don't the workers have an (increased) incentive to supply the existing demand of a society for profit?
Lol WHAT?

How the fuck are they going to do that?
The economy was already running at the level it is.
The machines that run the economy are already in existence. The "workers" would have to create more machinery, find more resources and expand. But that's what capitalists do all the time and are very efficient at it.
The workers would have to work just as hard as they do now and would get the same exact rewards.

>Wouldn't keeping the entirety of that profit mean that they are better off materially than if someone else appropriated the sweat of their brow?
Then they wouldn't be able to consumer any more goods than they already are?

lol god dammit you idiot

>However if all workers are also the owners then that risk is divided between them
Yes and when risk results in failure it hurts everyone in society now instead of the person who fucked up.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 02:57:01 2014 No.37126 >>37078 No natural rights means you get everything through voluntary exchange, which benefits both parties.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:00:01 2014 No.37153 >>37126 >tfw this is literally true >tfw taking money the capitalist makes in profit only makes you and society poorer overall >tfw these are objective facts that cannot be refuted

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:00:01 2014 No.37155

>>37126

I don't view nominally "free" contract as sacrosanct. If someone is starving he will suck your dick for a loaf of bread, and that could be construed as "voluntary", but it still makes the bread-giver an asshole. I would want to abolish the situation that caused such a situation, and sometimes you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:03:21 2014 No.37169 >>37155 >The bread giver is an asshole Hence why social norms exist Oh right but socialists don't believe in those

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:05:50 2014 No.37188
File: 69 KB, 326x351, 1390509487793.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>37087
If you're actually interested in learning about individualist ethics, natural rights, initiation of force, and socialist history the I can point you toward some good things to read.

I don't care about other people's thoughts. But actively attempting to achieve socialism is an extremely aggressive act - which any individual can very well extinguish in an act of self defense, ethically.

Obviously there are legal complications with this perspective on self-defense. But as a matter of ethics I think it's an unassailable position.

You might start with John Galt's speech to the nation in Atlas Shrugged if you're interested in learning more.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:05:50 2014 No.37190

>>37169

In a situation where someone legally owns all the food in town, and the latest food shipment is delayed or whatever, and everyone besides the one guy is starving, the others have the moral responsibility to take his food by force and divide it up equally. It's not free contract, but it's best for society.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:06:21 2014 No.37199 >>37190 What if the rest of the community literally only steals resources? Would it still be "morally" right then?

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:06:51 2014 No.37193

>Actually it was in a lot of cases. Especially in byzantium.
By definition it wasn't volutary, lol.

>The serf chose to work the lords land in exchange for part of his proceeds and the justice and security that the lord provided.
Who gave the lord his land in the first place? Oh wait the state.

>No, marxism is making sure noone exists to do so.
Marxists create these boogeymen that don't even exist and claim that if you just follow their dogma and let them control your life it will make the bad guys go away.

> it is plagued by inherent contradictions
Which have already been debunked and don't happen.

>and there are better ways to socially organise.
Violence and "democracy" is a terrible form of social organization, what people need is freedom.

>No, I'm in glorious nordicland.
That explains a lot. You have one of the most capitalist countries in the world actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

>Greece and india have abolished dependent employment.
You actually think that's something that can magically be abolished? lol oh god my sides

>You do understand that the austrian view on these things is fringe, right?
No shit, so are your theories.
Are are becoming more and more accepted now.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:09:20 2014 No.37213

>>37190
No one will ever own all the food in the town.
There will always be firms with an incentive to compete to produce more food for people.

The only time one person or group would own all the food in under socialism where the state owns all the food and growing your own is punishable by death. Like what happens in china.

Socialists deserve to die.

>>37193
Response to
>>36910

Don't bother replying though I'm going to sleep.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:11:50 2014 No.37230 >>37199 >>37213 >ignoring the argument since it contradicts you

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:14:56 2014 No.37248

>>37125
>Then why don't they?

Because you need resources to buy them and you the resources you are producing are immediately taken from you by another person. You have no choice but to accept that arrangement as he is already supplying the existing demand and there are no natural resources that you can exploit. There are however several examples of that happening with increased observed viability and no observable management issues.

>But you're a literal marxist lol

Yes, and you don't have to discuss these subjects with me if you don't want to. If you do, I expect you to act like an adult.

>Holy shit, you wouldn't benefit whatsoever from getting surplus value back

That's a contradictory statement. Are you saying that I won't benefit from increased profit because of inflation? Then how come the capitalist benefits from increased profit even though the same model can be applied to the capital goods he needs to buy to reinvest? Wouldn't the same logic applied to him mean that he also doesn't benefit from appropriating my surplus value?

However that's besides the point as the argument you quoted was deontological. Even if we were happier as slaves than as free men I would not support that.

>There's no magic solution to scarcity

Of course not. There is no solution to scarcity period. But I'm not trying to solve scarcity. I'm saying that we are not receiving the entire utility of the resources we are already exploiting.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:15:51 2014 No.37257

>>37248
>How the fuck are they going to do that?

How does the capitalist do that? He hires a marketer (in this case one of their associates) and he sells the produced wealth to whoever is buying it. Why do you think that wouldn't work here?

>The machines that run the economy are already in existence. The "workers" would have to create more machinery

As they always do.

>The workers would have to work just as hard as they do now and would get the same exact rewards.

That's objectively false. Worker A (manual laborer) and worker B (scientist) make product X. Product X is sold for 100$. Worker A receives 3$, worker B receives 7$, capitalist receives 90$ and reinvests 40. In what I'm describing worker A receives 50$, worker B receives 50$ and either of them reinvests 20$.

>Then they wouldn't be able to consumer any more goods than they already are?

Why wouldn't they? You are arguing that an improvement of their living conditions would literally not be an improvement of their living conditions.

>Yes and when risk results in failure it hurts everyone in society now instead of the person who fucked up.

No, it hurts exactly the people that made the decision and noone else. In our system 1 Capitalist makes a choice. If it is a good idea he profits from it while his workers still receive the same wages. If it fails they are laid off. In the system I'm describing 10 workers make a choice. If it fails then they all lose. If it succeeds they all win. They better get a few analysts on the team, pronto, wouldn't you say?

Other than that there is still a free market and the coops compete in a decentralised manner. If one enterprise makes a mistake another steps up and covers the demand rewarding its owners/workers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:17:50 2014 No.37270 >>37188 Ok. You're trolling. gg.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:19:50 2014 No.37288

>>37193
>Violence and "democracy" is a terrible form of social organization, what people need is freedom.

you're essentially saying monarchs are better than democratic assemblies because in a democracy you can never become a monarch. That's what this all amounts to essentially. That and loads of shitposting when you feel to insecure to engage his arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:30:50 2014 No.37385 File: 38 KB, 400x330, historica-empty-shelves.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] mods please move communist/socialist threads to /lgbt/

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:34:20 2014 No.37411

>>37193
Lol. According to that list Taiwan, macau, qatar, fucking ireland, chile, Hong fucking kong, the czech republic, holly shit georgia are more economically free than norway, while colombia is two places below it.

I'm in tears. The list disproves your points by itself, even if we disregard we don't know based on what that index was created.

The very fact colombia and norway are side by side fucking proves economic freedom isn't the defining factor in regards to standards of living.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:47:51 2014 No.37512 >>33513 Not the guy you were replying to, but >ad hominem

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:48:50 2014 No.37517

>>37411
The Heritage Foundation and the Fraser Institute determine these rankings based on their own political intentions. The fact that Columbia and Norway are side by side probably has something to do with Columbia having a right-leaning government, and may have nothing to do with actual economic freedom.
On the other hand, countries like Taiwan, Macau, Qatar, and Hong Kong are some of the best places to live on Earth. Norway is an interesting case, because, while it is not as economically free, its large reservoirs of oil, small population, and tendency to not go to war allow its citizens to enjoy a high quality of life.
Some nations have only recently instituted free economic policies, so we'll have to see how it goes. Other nations that made the transition less recently, particularly ex-bloc states like the Czech Republic and Georgia, are still having a difficult time adjusting.
And then there was that recent crisis of course. How nations coped more has to do with macroeconomic policy. That is to say, economic freedom had little to do with how well nations recover from such recessions.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 03:56:08 2014 No.37587

It boils down to people being ignorant about communism because it's never been tried. All of the "communist" countries were really fascist state capitalists = right-wing. Killing and atrocities are also incompatible with the left-wing (and marxism specifically).

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:04:07 2014 No.37640 >>37587 Why do you have to use the idiotic "right-wing" and "left-wing" terminology? Just say what you mean.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:05:07 2014 No.37646 >>37587 It's been tried and it was actually pretty successful until it was defeated in a few cases.

>>	PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs Sun Feb 16 04:08:37 2014 No.37666 >>33513 It is possible to have a negative IQ.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:12:07 2014 No.37694 File: 16 KB, 390x470, 12083701240.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>37666 >7 standard deviations

>>	PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs Sun Feb 16 04:14:09 2014 No.37710 >>37694 Not every IQ test is SD15.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:18:07 2014 No.37739 >>37710 If we're not talking about the same IQ metric, we're simply talking past each other. Shouldn't it be Πλάτων?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:22:08 2014 No.37771 >>37739 Or I guess Πλατω

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:25:07 2014 No.37795 >>32141 >Friendly reminder that the only decent economic school is Marxist and all capitalism has ever done has made a tiny elite incredibly rich and powerful from the labor of the masses. spoken like someone who doesnt know shit about economics

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:26:37 2014 No.37807 >>37795 Interesting, your post actually describes your own post!

>>	PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs Sun Feb 16 04:30:07 2014 No.37840 >>37739 It wouldn't let me use non ASCII characters.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:32:07 2014 No.37853

Typical discussion with a "Marxist."

>EMPLOYEES TAKE OUR SURPLUS LABOR! DOWN WITH DAS CAPITALIST!
>What about time preference? The wage you receive is what your marginal product minus the present discounted value and...
>what's marginal?

Marxist retards literally don't understand the concept of marginalism, subjective price theory, et cetera. They are trapped in the economic understanding (and a poor one at that) of the 19th century.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:33:07 2014 No.37860 >>37853 How's that assumption that utility can be proxied going for you? Oh wait, you don't understand the collapse of the 19th century utilitarian research programme.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:35:38 2014 No.37874 >>37860 >assumption that utility can be proxied I don't make that assumption nor is that necessary to not be a Marxist loser.

>>	PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs Sun Feb 16 04:37:37 2014 No.37886 >>37840 "Cartan" also looks really cool in Cyrillic, but it doesn't make sense in context.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:46:37 2014 No.37923 >>37874 Looks like you know nothing about marginalism.

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:50:37 2014 No.37941

It needs to be tried, it's unlivable and inequitable for some people to have so much more. And it's gross and offensive for these people to stroll around on TV with nice cars and mansions, etc. Equality is a basic human rights in the UN charters but as usual they're just all talk, no action.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 04:53:07 2014 No.37957 >>33333

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 05:02:07 2014 No.37999 >>37923 I interpreted proxied to mean "counted" or "cardinal."

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 05:32:13 2014 No.38148

>>37853
First of all, employers. And the point isn't to ascribe moral demerit to the action of the capitalist, it's to describe what happens. Granted, a lot of leftists refuse to understand that, but it is how marx meant it

Other than that, I need to ask you. Do you feel that misrepresenting your opponent's points makes you sound smarter? It doesn't. It make you look pathetic to anyone who understands the subject. You don't have to agree with something to understand or even respect the reasoning but I guess some of you refuse to look at it that way

Time preference is not a new thing Bastiat refered to it as previous accumulation and Marx specifically countered it himself with his theory of primitive accumulation

The point isn't that it's not possible but that it is in fact more difficult in a capitalist setting than it should be, because there are no free resources around so that you mostly have to sell your labor for a wage that doesn't allow you to save much capital.

The theory of primitive accumulation is based on the historic fact that the state violently appropriated lands and resources that it then gave to many former nobles, solidifying their presence in the new capitalist class and on the fact these resources pass from generation to generation of capitalists, leaving time-preference for the petit bourgeoisie.

The STV is an idealist value theory and those are the grounds marxists reject it on. You probably have some misconception in your head about the marxian LTV, which is in fact not the same as smith's or even bastiat's LTV. Price is defined subjectively in both theories.

Finally, even if we assumed time-preference was working perfectly, that would only mean we are downplaying social mobility. Social mobility however doesn't legitimise the existence of classes or social hierarchies in itself.

That a slave could work in his free time to save money that he used to buy his freedom (common occurence in Rome) and even slaves, doesn't legitimise slavery.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 10:33:05 2014 No.39973 >>32141 >marxism >econonomics top lel

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 10:34:05 2014 No.39977 >ITT >People who think the means of production shouldn't be owned by everyone top lel, exploiters, top lel

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 10:35:28 2014 No.39992 File: 49 KB, 300x250, Ποσαδισμός.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Damn OP, I just found out about this useless board and you stole the only thread I was about to make here!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 10:36:28 2014 No.39998 >>39977 >means of production shouldn't be owned by everyone Why should they be?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 10:39:29 2014 No.40020 File: 498 KB, 300x222, hahano.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>32174 >Marxism >one of his most profound literary works is "Critique of the political economy" and I won't even mention the other one... >not economix

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 10:42:28 2014 No.40040 File: 795 KB, 245x168, TimCurry.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>32252 Says who? The wall street journal?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 10:47:28 2014 No.40071 >>32749 the money is on the comeback, not the cure. That's how drugdealers operate.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 10:52:29 2014 No.40116 >>33225 >you think that the 'common man' just waltzed into positions of power in the USSR or in modern Communist China? they fucked a lot of people over to get anywhere, this is how hierarchical systems work.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 10:55:28 2014 No.40133 >>32141 >This thread is for people who actually understand economics, i.e. Marxists This is bait. Get a fucking job you filthy pleb and stop whining. Your idealistic utopia will never happen. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 10:56:28 2014 No.40135 >>37113 it's called a coup you illiterate

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 10:59:28 2014 No.40157 >>40133 Better utopia which is in the making than your scheme that you devise in your heads thinking your fairy tales actually benefit anyone other than rich corporate guys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suVB3YGIUk0

Anonymous Sun Feb 16 11:05:29 2014 No.40191

>>40157
I have earned a buttload of money playing on the stock market. I got the initial money to get things started by working hard. Now I live a pretty darn good life. To make money you have to make smart decisions, not work hard till the end of your days. Get some starting money and start a company or invest on the market. How hard can it fucking be?
We have opened a data recovery lab for the money earned from mining bitcoins for Petes sake! It won't get any easier. If you are older than 27 and still poor you are a fucking looser.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 11:35:36 2014 No.40380 >>40191 >Get some starting money and start a company or invest on the market. How hard can it fucking be? Boy, are we deluded or what??

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 16 16:34:09 2014 No.43156 >>36348 Don't blame the capitalist here faggot, blame the fucking leftist. Why do you fuckers ALWAYS hate your own shithole and decide to come over to where capitalists come and try to make it a similar shithole that you left?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/biz/ - Business & Finance