/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.8796044]

Why can't /biz/ have a conversation about Marx without it devolving into a brain dead virtue signaling contest about communism? Its like none of you have actually read his econ work.

[Anonymous No.8796056]

Dude famine LMAO

[Anonymous No.8796057]

How would a proper allocation of resources happen without a pricing system (markets)?
Did Marx have an answer to that? I'm genuinely asking, I haven't read it.

[Anonymous No.8796063]

Karl Marx was the first NEET
Communism is basically saying everyone can be a NEET

[Anonymous No.8796065]

>>8796044
fuck off with that on /pol/ every commie should get bullet

[Anonymous No.8796094]

>>8796044
>Marx
Marx want to make all same perfect like industrial plant of hes father

[Anonymous No.8796156]

>>8796057

Marx has little quips in some of his work about certain market forms being forms of communism, Owen and Warren's labor vouchers for example, which are just market models but without centralized control of property or the money system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_voucher

But desu Marx is pretty vague about "communism" and a lot more specific about how capitalism actually works. He was the first to propose an anthropological study of economics, looking at the actual series of events which lead to the economic context he lived in to help determine how that context functions. He also developed the idea of a business cycle, a tendency towards a falling rate of profit, and took Smith/Ricardo's ideas regarding the labor-form to their, now seemingly obvious. conclusion of alienated production which explains how equity holders can extract more than they've put into a system.

[Anonymous No.8796248]

>reading a book on economics by someone who never became rich
Why would I waste my time?

[Anonymous No.8796275]

>>8796044

[Anonymous No.8796287]

>>8796156
>labor vouchers for example
Isn't that just money in a different name? And if they aren't centralized, who makes these vouchers and who is allowed to distribute them? What if people create their own vouchers to build free everything? Like printing a billion vouchers to get people to build me a castle.

[Anonymous No.8796429]

look at this poundland darwin.
get a real beard and moustache, you damned hippy.

[Anonymous No.8796458]

>>8796044
You hear that anon? It's a helicopter motor.
Time for your free ride

[Anonymous No.8796480]

>>8796287
> Isn't that just money in a different name?

Yes.

> And if they aren't centralized, who makes these vouchers and who is allowed to distribute them? What if people create their own vouchers to build free everything? Like printing a billion vouchers to get people to build me a castle.

They're backed by a money commodity. In Warren's case, he used bushels of corn, but any money commodity would work. There's no reason to have a central controller of the money system if you have a commodity backing the supply.

Marx critiques capitalist fetishization of money, markets, and commodification (as all interactions need to be reduced to the market form in order for profit to be extracted) and somehow that gets construed as a money allergy in contemporary propaganda.

>>8796248

Marx actually did decently speculating, and Engels, his writing partner, was a very wealthy speculator.

[Anonymous No.8796492]

>>8796458

[Anonymous No.8796567]

>>8796044
He is a fucking retard read F A Hyak fuckface

[Anonymous No.8796584]

>>8796044
OP come take a ride on mu helicopter

[Anonymous No.8796600]

>>8796044
LTV no good so what is there to converse about? It's like trying to have a conversation about aether theory, flat earth etc. it's fundamentally wrong so there is no point.

[Anonymous No.8796621]

Ive BTFO you people so many times Its just not worth the effort anymore
Die soon

[Anonymous No.8796622]

>>8796567

But Hayek doesn't interact with Marx, he interacts with caricatures of Marx. Sure, read Marx, then read Hayek.

[Anonymous No.8796722]

>>8796600

Attempts to throw out Smith/Ricardo/Marx' work on value-theory haven't actually addressed their ideas, just weird caricatures of them. Marginalism, and any 'subjective' interpretation of value, is perfectly compatible with LTV, for example. Value in LTV is just the market price of a commodity when the supply and demand for that commodity reach equilibrium. Marginalism looks at instances where supply and demand are not at equilibrium. Marx' thesis is that state actions (namely, enclosure and colonization) have distorted the supply and demand for capital resulting in the creation of classes with different marginal valuations of labor.

[Anonymous No.8796731]

>>8796044
Because literally all Marxists do is virtue signal about rich people instead of talking about economics.

[Anonymous No.8796763]

>>8796492

[Anonymous No.8796765]

>>8796044
Marx doesn't address human behavior. If communism doesn't work at a small scale, it won't work at a large scale either.

[Anonymous No.8796835]

>>8796480
>They're backed by a money commodity
What's the difference from using gold as the standard? You can't really criticize the fetisization of money while also using money by just changing the name of money.

[Anonymous No.8796919]

>>8796722
>no, every econ PhD is wrong and Marx is right. They just didn't understand him!

[Anonymous No.8796937]

>>8796835

> What's the difference from using gold as the standard?

Gold is an example of a money-commodity. There is no difference.

> You can't really criticize the fetisization of money while also using money by just changing the name of money.

What I'm trying to convey here is that he's not critiquing the use of money or markets, he's critiquing a tendency to reduce every interaction to money, markets, and commodification so that profit can be extracted from the labor involved.

[Anonymous No.8796953]

>>8796919

There are plenty of Marxist economists... and economics as a study isn't generally focused on political economics anyway.

[Anonymous No.8796959]

>>8796919
We don't like to shill it here because 4chan is full of /pol/ kiddies who get triggered anything left to the right.

There's actually some great leftist discussion on /leftypol/ granted there's some SJW faggots but the dicussion there is much better than just LE HELICOPTERXDD GOMMUNISM KILLS

[Anonymous No.8796963]

>>8796919

Also, the neoclassical model is exactly the kind of synthesis of LTV and marginalism I'm talking about, and that is currently the dominant model that's used when making assumptions about political economy in the field.

[Anonymous No.8796972]

>>8796937
But every interaction can be reduced to money and when you're not working, you're spending your time elsewhere that you deem equivalent to making money. If you'd rather watch a TV show instead of more work, that's because you value relaxing/enjoying art to the same amount as working.

[Anonymous No.8796983]

>>8796044
Communism doesn't work because there are literally no incentives for people to work harder if there are no fair rewards. For example, who the fuck would want to go to medical school for 10 years to be a doctor just so they can spend their life making the same amount as a ditch digger? People that think this could ever work are deluded.

[Anonymous No.8796997]

>>8796156
>But desu Marx is pretty vague about "communism" and a lot more specific about how capitalism actually works.

Any fool can criticize. Leftists never cared about results and hence why they keep repeating the same failures.

[Anonymous No.8797055]

>>8796953
Yes and they are mostly at meme schools like UMass Amherst and the New School.

>>8796959
>There's actually some great leftist discussion on /leftypol/ granted there's some SJW faggots but the dicussion there is much better than just LE HELICOPTERXDD GOMMUNISM KILLS
Nah it's mostly retarded. The vast majority of people there just pretend to have read leftist "theory" and you still get banned for taking the incorrect line on (insert third-world conflict here).

[Anonymous No.8797067]

>>8796972

You can express any interaction in terms of some money-commodity, but that doesn't mean that every single interaction needs to actually involve markets or money.

I'll give you an example. Let's say I'm a mechanic and my friend Steve's car breaks down. I know Steve is a good guy who has my back, so I offer to fix his car for free (or the cost of the parts). So we've had this interaction, and although you can say "the amount of labor I produced is valued at x amount on the market", no actual market exchange was involved in rendering that labor. That doesn't mean there aren't any market exchanges ever, but sometimes different exchange-forms make more sense.

Capitalism works against that kind of interaction because it centralizes control of productive property into the hands of a class of people who are estranged from the actual productive process. If you work at a Walmart Tire and Lube center, and your buddy Steve has his car break down, Walmart is not going to let you use their garage to fix Steve's car for free because Walmart doesn't know Steve and can't extract profit from a marketless exchange like that.

[Anonymous No.8797083]

>>8797067
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.8797096]

>>8796983
People who want to be doctors instead of ditch diggers, maybe? Don't forget that going to medical school wouldn't cost anything except time, so if that's what your interest is, there's literally no drawback to pursuing it.

[Anonymous No.8797161]

>>8796044
Communism can't and wont work in america because once a person has theirs they say fuck everyone else. There is no common goal to strive towards, there is nothing more important than the individual. Slight socialism can and does work to a certain extent in monocultural countries in Europe and may even Japan. But in a generation or 2, that will fail.
Just look at any public bathroom and compare that to an individuals bathroom at home. People don't give a shit if it's not theirs

[Anonymous No.8797180]

>>8797083

Never, suicide is a way for wagecucks and the diseased to escape their plight. I'm crypto-rich and healthy.

[Anonymous No.8797184]

>>8797067
What you've offered Steve is a favor. That's simply because you valued his friendship or this favor above monetary gain which is value in of itself. If you then ask Steve to pay for something, that's an equivalent exchange without the use of money. No market of exchange was involved because it didn't require it but is still present.

This is just a macrolevel solution and arguing it would work if you didn't know Steve you'd just do it. Even if you remove Walmart and this rando comes asking for services, I am effectively becoming a slave to someone I don't know for no reason. Add this process for a lifetime and I've worked for no reason to people I don't know for any reason or goods that cannot be exchanged or used.

[Anonymous No.8797211]

>>8796044
His econ work is pure autism.
The idea that objects have an inherent, objective value is absurd.
I mean autism literally, not as a quip. Autism implies no theory of mind - basically the idea that other people may have different goals and information.
Marx is literally unable to comprehend that two different people can value the same object differently. If everyone values everything identically, then logically, every profit has to be someone's loss.
That's where his ideas of exploitation come from.

tl;dr Autism. Marxism is literally autism. If Marx was alive today he would be a brony neet and fap to cartoon ponies everyday.

[Anonymous No.8797236]

>>8797184
> Even if you remove Walmart and this rando comes asking for services, I am effectively becoming a slave to someone I don't know for no reason

If its some rando then you charge them for the service because its some rando.

> That's simply because you valued his friendship or this favor above monetary gain which is value in of itself. If you then ask Steve to pay for something, that's an equivalent exchange without the use of money. No market of exchange was involved because it didn't require it but is still present.

Again, "You can express any interaction in terms of some money-commodity, but that doesn't mean that every single interaction needs to actually involve markets or money."

[Anonymous No.8797245]

>>8797096
>Wagecuck for fun.

[Anonymous No.8797249]

>>8797211
you are autism
marx says none of those things

[Anonymous No.8797256]

>>8797211
>The idea that objects have an inherent, objective value is absurd.

Marx has never said that objects have an inherent objective value. He was building off of the work of Smith and Ricardo who also never said anything about objects having objective value. This is a meme invented decades after his death.

[Anonymous No.8797275]

>>8797236
>If its some rando then you charge them for the service because its some rando.
But isn't the point of communism to abolish money and work freely?

>Again, "You can express any interaction in terms of some money-commodity, but that doesn't mean that every single interaction needs to actually involve markets or money."
You haven't proven or shown an interaction that doesn't involve money. A favor or value because he's a friend is not the same as interactions among strangers.

That's not to say that every single interaction needs to involve the market, like say parents taking care of children, but it doesn't mean that each interaction doesn't have a market value that people simply chose to ignore. Like deciding to not work to relax instead of working.

[Anonymous No.8797279]

>>8797245
There's an ass for every seat anon. Not saying that Communism is the best way to organize asses into seats, but that guy's example was pretty retarded.

[Anonymous No.8797295]

>>8796044
>WHY DONT YOU RESPECT THE ECONOMIC WRITINGS OF THIS LITERAL SATANIST JEW WHO NEVER WORKED A DAY IN HIS LIFE

[Anonymous No.8797358]

>>8797275
> But isn't the point of communism to abolish money and work freely?

No. Marx (and others) discuss several forms of communism, both involving money and not. Money is a tool, like a hammer, and capitalism visualizes every problem as if it were a nail. Which I mean, sure, you can think of a screw as a nail, I mean, its basically just a nail with special ridges on it, but beating it with a hammer isn't necessarily the most efficient way to drive it into a block of wood.

> You haven't proven or shown an interaction that doesn't involve money. A favor or value because he's a friend is not the same as interactions among strangers.

Right. Marx' fettishization argument is that capitalism actively suppresses this kind of interaction among friends because the class directing production is estranged from that friendship, and needs to extract profit from the interaction in order to sustain itself.

> but it doesn't mean that each interaction doesn't have a market value that people simply chose to ignore

But again, Marx never actually argues that you cant express non-market interactions using the value-form.

[Anonymous No.8797400]

>>8797358
>Money is a tool, like a hammer, and capitalism visualizes every problem as if it were a nail.
I don't understand the metaphor or problem. If money isn't a problem then capitalism is fine. The problem seems to be greed itself which is a natural desire that will never change.

>Marx' fettishization argument is that capitalism actively suppresses this kind of interaction among friends because the class directing production is estranged from that friendship, and needs to extract profit from the interaction in order to sustain itself.
That seems unsubstantiated. Sustaining yourself seems irrelevant to doing a favor for a friend. That seems to only be possible if the labor worker cannot spare any time for friends which doesn't seem real.

[Anonymous No.8797414]

>>8797249
>>8797256
He did:
"In order to express the value of the linen as a congelation of human labour, that value must be expressed as having objective existence, as being a something materially different from the linen itself, and yet a something common to the linen and all other commodities. "

>objective existence

"In the production of the coat, human labour-power, in the shape of tailoring, must have been actually expended. Human labour is therefore accumulated in it. In this aspect the coat is a depository of value [..]"

Inherent value is literally defined as 'accumulated' labor, whatever that actually means.
http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html

What you and other marxists today are doing is revisionism because fundamental works are so idiotic they must be 'interpreted' to hide that fact.

[Anonymous No.8797461]

>>8797096
In Cuba there is a shortage of doctors because they make less money in a month than a cab driver makes in a week. Doctors and engineers are quitting their jobs to become cab drivers. Great society, right?

[Anonymous No.8797507]

>>8797414
he's talking about the value of human labour faget.
he's only saying that human labour has a value separate from the value of the material it produces.

[Anonymous No.8797566]

>>8797414

He's not using the word 'objective' in the same way that you are:

> Marx is literally unable to comprehend that two different people can value the same object differently.

He's saying that labor must be placed into some object- a good or service- in order for it to find value in the market. Literally just read the sentence before the one you quoted:

"There is, however, something else required beyond the expression of the specific character of the labour of which the value of the linen consists. Human labour power in motion, or human labour, creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object."

[Anonymous No.8797569]

>>8797507
No:
"All that these things now tell us is, that human labour-power has been expended in their production, that human labor is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are—Values."

"A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article."

Could Marx be more clear? "Has value only". "Embodied". "Materialized". "Crystals". Value is defined AS embodied labor. That's it.
The bare simplicity of this absurd idea is so hard to believe because Marx was a genuine autist with no theory of mind.

[Anonymous No.8797591]

>>8796044
Why would we tho? Very few commies ever use any non emotional arguments and the discussion degeneates into /pol/ tier arguing.

[Anonymous No.8797593]

>>8796044
Oh my fucking god stop shilling your retarded "philosopher" just because you don't want to get a job and work hard

[Anonymous No.8797602]

>>8797569
>Value is defined AS embodied labor.
Jesus, did Marx really believe that? Not all labor is valuable and not all value is defined by labor.

[Anonymous No.8797609]

>>8796063
Exactly

[Anonymous No.8797623]

you just replied to yourself, OP.
these people are ignorant and retarded, their "knowledge" comes from memes, they get REALLY emotional when contradicted

>>8797414
>>8797211
>>8797569
I think Marx is describing how capitalists behave and what they seem to think about value, not that he agrees with that. and, in fact, people seem to believe that things have inherent value.

>>8797461
m8, Cuba literally lends doctors to other countries as a way to get food/other goods. also, I don't think people there have the right to decide if they want to become cad drivers or not..

[Anonymous No.8797626]

>>8796044

[Anonymous No.8797629]

>>8796458
Tip top kek

[Anonymous No.8797637]

>>8797569
yes, and?
that doesnt refute what i wrote.
>the value-creating substance, the labour
this should give it away. labour is valuable when the article it creates is useful itself.

[Anonymous No.8797650]

>>8797602
marx is referring to an already useful product.
he is saying "a useful product gets its value from the labour made in creating it"

[Anonymous No.8797668]

>>8797400

For Marx, capitalism isn't just markets and money. Its specifically the business cycle, in which capital in its money form is used to rent labor, and more than the original value entered into the cycle is spit out the other end. For Marx, this is a result of state intervention in exchange and ownership, in which the state forcibly siezed property and laborers, and then imbued ownership to a small group of people estranged from the actual productive process. This creates a disparity in the supply vs. demand for capital, which the owners of that capital can use to their advantage to pay less than the value of the labor they're renting.

> That seems unsubstantiated. Sustaining yourself seems irrelevant to doing a favor for a friend. That seems to only be possible if the labor worker cannot spare any time for friends which doesn't seem real.

You're misunderstanding. It's not the laborer who requires the market-form to sustain itself, its the property owner, as the property owner relies on the market-form to extract profit. That's why I, as a Tire and Lube Expert at Walmart, can't service my buddy, Steve's car for free, despite that I know Steve is a good guy, and everyone I work with also knows Steve and trusts both of us.

[Anonymous No.8797707]

Problem with Marx is that this guy envisioned a socialist state, but never explicitly said how it would work, so he can't ever be refuted, because he never said exactly how it would work. Every socialist economist that tried his theory found out that eventually it would cause economic despair.

Austrians wrote literal books telling them how their theory was wrong and wouldn't work, but they had a lot of problems, because the Soviet Union was doing fine (in appearance). It was only recently, that the URSS ended that economist are turning to Hayek and Mises as winners of the Liberal X Socialist debate. But society as a whole is a laggard and is taking a while to catch on.

[Anonymous No.8797746]

>>8797566
You're reading it wrong:
>Human labour power in motion, or human labour, creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object

(also >>8797637)
He's using one word to define two concepts.
One thing is literal physical labor. Another is a nebulous concept of crystallized social labor which could as well be called 'mana'. 'Mana' embodied in objects IS their objective value; mana is created by (individual) human labor. Everything Marx ever wrote becomes clear once you realize that.

>>8797623
>not that he agrees with that
If you actually read the 'Das Kapital' I linked you would realize that's an obviously incorrect assessment. That's what he believes in.
Again:
http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html

[Anonymous No.8797763]

>>8797249
Ya he does. He said that the bougiieoueua or whatever profit from the production of "surplus" labor, which is retarded because if it was truly surplus it would have no value to profit from.

Communism is just a trick to (1) bring about jewish supremacy, and (2) kill as many people as possible.

[Anonymous No.8797780]

>>8796480
>There's no reason to have a central controller of the money system if you have a commodity backing the supply

This just means I can use those bushels as currency, thanks great idea

[Anonymous No.8797792]

>>8797746
>a nebulous concept of crystallized social labor which could as well be called 'mana'
top kek

[Anonymous No.8797802]

>>8796622
Please stay poor reading random shit and caring about dead people's arguments

[Anonymous No.8797827]

>>8796722
These are the same people who will also say that communism hasn't been done right and needs to be tried again

[Anonymous No.8797864]

>>8797096
No you ignorant fuck, the incentive to specialize is fueled by the reward of status in the dominance hierarchy game that we've been playing for billions of years, this status can come from money or the power of a political postition which is also rewarded with money you fucking mong

[Anonymous No.8797870]

>>8797746
>You're reading it wrong

Nope.

> One thing is literal physical labor. Another is a nebulous concept of crystallized social labor which could as well be called 'mana'. 'Mana' embodied in objects IS their objective value; mana is created by (individual) human labor. Everything Marx ever wrote becomes clear once you realize that.

Labor value isn't something unique to Marx' ideas. Do you honestly believe that, not just Marx, but also Smith, Ricardo, and many lesser known economists of the period are "literally unable to comprehend that two different people can value the same object differently"?

[Anonymous No.8797882]

>>8797802

But I'm already crypto-rich :(

[Anonymous No.8797902]

>>8796044
Unironically, communism will prevail, but "ruling party" won't be some easily corruptible humans.

When ai takes over the world, we will be ruled by them, and as you can't blackmail and/or corrupt an ai, they will become our supreme leaders.

Time is ticking.

[Anonymous No.8797916]

>>8797067
Yo this is levels of autism I've never explored before, as someone who does just that on a micro scale (if my friends break their phone screens, I fix them at part cost) I can tell you for a fact that you don't need a complete economic revolution to make sure this "type of transaction" happens between people, and you have to be absolutely aspie if you think that all human interactions/transactions can be explained away with one single ideology, you realize that sometimes you don't even know why you do things, like why the fuck did you make this thread again?

[Anonymous No.8797927]

>>8797566
>"There is, however, something else required beyond the expression of the specific character of the labour of which the value of the linen consists. Human labour power in motion, or human labour, creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA this is just double-talking jewish bullshit HAHAHAHAHA he only says this shit to confuse and demoralize people my god you are so dumb.

It works like this:
>1. Say something confusing and pointless, hypnotizing stupid people.
>2. Say something insane. Stupid people will accept it because you’ve already intellectually demoralized them.
>3. When smart people call you out for saying something insane, retreat back to the confusing amd pointless statement, and say that it qualifies the insane statement so it isnt insane (actually the first statement was meaningless, but can be twisted to mean anything).
>4. If the smart person complains your argument doesn’t follow, act superior, like they are just too dumb to understand it.
>5. If the smart person tries to make a point coming from the other direction, never accept his premise no matter what it is, and act like you don’t understand what he is saying.

This is how a debate with a jew or other high IQ liberal usually goes.

[Anonymous No.8797942]

>>8797067
So you want Walmart to go through the process of building a garage for your personal private use?

[Anonymous No.8797954]

>>8796835
Jews also used to control the price of gold. So the purpose here was to have some jews arguing for gold, amd some jews arguing against gold, but in a way where jews still have control. They always try to control both sides of the debate like this. It’s just like Emmanual Goldstein fron 1984.

[Anonymous No.8797959]

>>8797916

no one said its impossible for you to fix your friends' phone screens, fag. You don't need access to capital to do that.

[Anonymous No.8797979]

>>8797236
>If its some rando then you charge them for the service because its some rando.

WHY NOT JUST DO CAPITALISM THEN LMAO

[Anonymous No.8797980]

>>8797650
>he is saying "a useful product gets its value from the labour made in creating it"
You're directly contradicting Marx again:
"A thing can be a use-value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour."
The man couldn't be more clear really. A thing can be useful while having no value, because objective value is determined by mana (crystallized social labor). You can't understand him because today subjective theory of value seems as obvious as gravity.

>>8797870
>Labor value isn't something unique to Marx' ideas

Another instance of historical revisionism. Other economists looked at labor as cost which therefore determines the lowest price for sustainable production. Marx is unique in his magical fetishism of 'crystallized social labor'.

[Anonymous No.8797983]

>>8797942

No, I'm not trying to virtue signal about what Walmart should be doing, I'm explaining how the relationship between estranged property owners and laborers fetishizes the market form.

[Anonymous No.8798006]

>>8797959
Alright go to my wholesale distributor and tell him about your capital situation, see if he gives you an LCD.

[Anonymous No.8798015]

>>8797980
> Other economists looked at labor as cost which therefore determines the lowest price for sustainable production.

but anon, labor can be valued differently by different people so you can never determine a "lowest price" of production, as that's going to vary from exchange to exchange. :^)

[Anonymous No.8798021]

>>8797980
Crystallized social labor is money, otherwise prove the difference using real world examples that exist and work over time.

[Anonymous No.8798029]

>>8797902
Yep, ultimately, communists are really just anti-human. In light of that, the mass murder makes a lot more sense. It’s almost like the only goal of communism is to kill as many people as possible.

[Anonymous No.8798053]

>>8798015
This is why governments create minimum wages, mongolico. Even if the government didn't have a minimum wage, the free market would create one naturally, as it determines the price for everything. What you're getting this confused with is labor cost in different countries and across skill level, once the global economy truly unravels from the chains of regional politics things will be balanced better.

[Anonymous No.8798063]

>>8797983
What the fuck does that even mean

[Anonymous No.8798068]

>>8797461
See, the only reason this situation exists is because of wage discrepancy. If they were communist in the sense of "no money," then that wouldn't be a concern. The competition for money intrinsically means that there is a capitalist foundation to that system.

[Anonymous No.8798073]

>>8798006

What even is your point here?

Let's look at another example: Say Ching Chong works in a factory that produces LCDs. Ching Chong's friend Chong Ching breaks his phone. Ching Chong can't use the factory to produce an LCD screen at cost, he, like you, has to buy one through a wholesaler, which includes the cost of labor used to produce the display. This is because Ching Chong's employer needs to rent labor and sell its value in order to extract profit from the exchange.

>>8797979
> For Marx, capitalism isn't just markets and money. Its specifically the business cycle, in which capital in its money form is used to rent labor, and more than the original value entered into the cycle is spit out the other end. For Marx, this is a result of state intervention in exchange and ownership, in which the state forcibly siezed property and laborers, and then imbued ownership to a small group of people estranged from the actual productive process. This creates a disparity in the supply vs. demand for capital, which the owners of that capital can use to their advantage to pay less than the value of the labor they're renting.

[Anonymous No.8798098]

ignorant people should refrain from entering a discussion about something they don't have the minimum idea about...

[Anonymous No.8798115]

>>8797980
>can be a use-value, without having value
note the word "be" there. it refutes nothing of what i said, referring to products and not "air, virgin soil, natural meadows etc" as marx put it

[Anonymous No.8798150]

>>8798073
Yep, money is used to pay everyone for the time spent away from their natural 'lazy' state. That's how this works, the employer took the time to create a business that provides this service to people and in order to continue covering present and future costs as well as accumulating enough wealth to ensure the success of this and any other venture undertaken he takes a little bit extra, is that too much to ask? Yes we're getting into hundred millions and billions but thats just because the stakes are higher than they've ever been before, soon when the space economy takes off we'll move into the trillions worth of resources.

[Anonymous No.8798176]

>>8798073
And no, no one individual can use the resources of the group for their own private interest, why should the world care that Ling Ling broke his phone screen, instead his ability to provide value to the world should determine whether or not he's able to use the world's resources for his needs.

[Anonymous No.8798188]

>>8797864
>all human motivation is driven by money
Nice dogma, but the adults are talking, m8. Why don't you go back to /d/ and jack off to futa like a good little boy.

[Anonymous No.8798193]

>>8798150
> is that too much to ask?

I'm not interested in virtue signaling. I'm explaining how capitalism fetishizes the market-form to someone who asked about Marx' ideas.

[Anonymous No.8798254]

>>8798015
>but anon, labor can be valued differently by different people so you can never determine a "lowest price" of production, as that's going to vary from exchange to exchange. :^)

The lowest price is obviously food required for survival of the worker. During David Ricardo's times labor was not mechanized and consisted almost entirely of unskilled physical work, so a simplification of labor hours as the only discerning input made sense. It was a pretty universal measure because it came from human biology.
That's a different thing than what Marx did. Neither Smith nor Ricardo claimed that embodied labor _is_ value.

>>8798021
Objective value doesn't exist. If money measured that objective value prices would be constant. Which is incidentally what socialist planned economies tried to do.

>>8798115
I see you're one of those that claim their religion is right even in the face of a direct contradiction. As religions go, marxism is pretty bleak. Why not choose something with cool afterlife?

[Anonymous No.8798276]

>>8798188
When did I say that lmao, I said exactly what I meant, the INCENTIVE to SPECIALIZE (concentrate on and become expert in a particular subject or skill) is the REWARD of STATUS, a doctor becomes a doctor because of the prestige and nobility whether for themselves or their community, not the money you mong, this status CAN come from money.

[Anonymous No.8798285]

>>8798254
> The lowest price is obviously food required for survival of the worker.

Who determines the value of the food? A starving worker is going to value food more than a well fed one.

[Anonymous No.8798287]

>>8798193
First leftist not interested in virtue signaling. Capitalism is the market form retard.

[Anonymous No.8798293]

>>8798073
Because the margins per screen unit are supposed to pay for other things related to distribution of the product.

If workers just fixed their screens at factory cost then there'd be no room for expanding funds, advertisement, design, management, commercialization, and a long list of labors that help place the product in people's homes which are not related to what goes on in the factory.

[Anonymous No.8798300]

>>8798254
orly
>"Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value."

[Anonymous No.8798302]

>>8796044

Marx didnt know shit about economics. Why do you faggot communists idolize a man who never accomplished anything.

[Anonymous No.8798321]

>>8798293
Exactly, communists literally don't understand basic economics.

[Anonymous No.8798333]

>>8797096
Except massive stress, liability, and being on-call 20 hours a day? You dumbfuck teenager.

[Anonymous No.8798353]

>>8798254
What I meant was that "crystal blah blah" is just a term marxists used to explain what money explains, aka value.

[Anonymous No.8798364]

>>8796044
He's a subversive kike. The end.

[Anonymous No.8798386]

>>8798333
Top kek, communism is just a phase thankfully.

[Anonymous No.8798422]

>>8797096
>there's literally no drawback to pursuing it.
There is, redundancy of labor leads to less productive outcomes.

The number of doctors, when not exposed to supply and demand, can perfectly well be wrong, thus dragging the rest of the economy down, as this excess of labor will have to be paid for by socializing the losses. Multiply this for every profession and every product in the world and you get the disastrous results in resource allocation that Communism brings.

[Anonymous No.8798478]

>>8796492
Holy fucking kek my sides

Also, Marxist 'economics' is drivel. The only good school of economics is Austrian

[Anonymous No.8798479]

>>8797211
but he makes the distinction between use value and exchange value in Kapital

[Anonymous No.8798527]

Marx is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people because of his pathetic and pitiful communist philosophy. If there is anyone in history I would murder as an infant, it would be him. His name shouldn't even be mentioned in any conversation whatsoever. He should disappear and rot away in the ashbin of history.

[Anonymous No.8798628]

>>8798300
That sentence has no logical connection with anything else and contradicts it. Marx either realized, or someone pointed to him, that according to his definitions pointless work creates value, so he wrote that it doesn't.
Even worse, utility is not defined at all. The concept is magically assumed to be self-explanatory, but it actually creates a contradiction. Utility is obviously subjective which destroys his entire reasoning, as every voluntary transaction results in profit on both sides.

[Anonymous No.8798680]

>>8798068
Without money there is no incentive. That's not to say doctor's wouldn't be open to operating out of charity, but they cannot afford to do so without individuals both willing and able to pay for their services and thus providing them an income.

[Anonymous No.8798704]

>>8798293

In the scenario I've laid out, Ching Chong is willing to cover all costs required to bring the product to market (including costs of advertising, design, etc...) except for the cost of his own labor.

[Anonymous No.8798774]

>>8798628
> Utility is obviously subjective

As was Marx' entire value model, brainlet

[Anonymous No.8798835]

>>8798704
His labor surplus is accounted for as well in the provision of funds for expansion of operations. If the entire batch was sold to factory workers, company would stagnate.

[Anonymous No.8799157]

>>8798333
Every profession includes stress. Liability and needing to be on call are simply the result of the capitalist system that demands financial recompense for undesirable outcomes, and the fact that the market fails to allocate resources efficiently enough to guarantee that the number of doctors on hand at any given time is sufficient to meet demand (massive capital investment to become a doctor and fear of liability are two massive factors to this, too).

>>8798422
I don't necessarily disagree (see >>8797279), but is it not the case that redundancy is sometimes better than shortage, as in the above example (not enough doctors, requiring some to be on call)? Especially if, theoretically, the cost of said redundancy is something that the system can not only bear on occasion, but support indefinitely?

[Anonymous No.8799179]

>>8799157
>Being on call to random events and possible emergencies that happen without warning is the result of capitalism.

Teenagers have been left to pick up the mantle of communism, thank god, maybe this time it'll be nothing more than pointless fumes stemming from poor development.

[Anonymous No.8799221]

>>8798835

Yes, specifically, the value required to attract the investment capital needed to maintain a competitive organic composition of capital. Hence: "It's not the laborer who requires the market-form to sustain itself, its the property owner, as the property owner relies on the market-form to extract profit. That's why I, as a Tire and Lube Expert at Walmart, can't service my buddy, Steve's car for free, despite that I know Steve is a good guy, and everyone I work with also knows Steve and trusts both of us."

Capitalism doesn't fetishize the market-form because it gets the business class' collective dicks hard, it does this because its necessary for capitalist production to sustain itself.

[Anonymous No.8799267]

>>8799157
You absolute idiot, within individuals there are varying levels of skill, even if they have the 'right' amount of doctors around at the 'right' time, Dr. A, because of some individual life experience or some other random shit, will be more calm when operating on a gunshot victim than Dr. B, so they need Dr. A even if he's not in the hospital, how do you fix this? Maybe if we had a system where we could call the doctors that we need within a previously agreed upon time frame, oh wait.

[Anonymous No.8799305]

>>8799221
Retard, you can be a producer and a consumer at the same time, as a matter of fact producers are some of the biggest consumers. There isn't some Monopoly man sitting with a cigar in his mouth controlling everything and stopping his employees from also being students, or entrepreneurs, or artists etc.

[Anonymous No.8799329]

>>8799305

I never said you couldn't both produce and consume things... where are you even getting that idea from?

[Anonymous No.8799339]

>>8799305
>There isn't some Monopoly man sitting with a cigar in his mouth controlling everything

prove it, bitch. i've been on adderall since i was 6 and i absolutely KNOW this to be true

[Anonymous No.8799341]

>>8796044
you cant have an honest conversation when you're killing chickens in the street

[Anonymous No.8799368]

>>8799329
>"It's not the laborer who requires the market-form to sustain itself, its the property owner, as the property owner relies on the market-form to extract profit.

No one else benefits from capitalism, it stops at the producer, that's what you're saying, the laborer doesn't WANT to sell his labor, the crony Monopoly man tricks him into it right? Makes sense

[Anonymous No.8799375]

>>8799339
Kek'd

[Anonymous No.8799387]

>>8798287
I see plenty of "virtue signaling" from people of every political stripe. It's hardly confined to leftists.

[Anonymous No.8799458]

>>8799368

The laborer isn't being tricked, so much as they find themselves in a context in which selling their labor is the best option they have.

[Anonymous No.8799517]

>>8799221
Sup commiebro, I'm a layman in economic theory but I wanted to share something about marx's writing that bugs me.

>Communist Manifesto came out in 1848
>Das Kapital came out in 1867
>Darwin's On the Origin of Species came out in 1859

It's rather unlikely that Marx had any knowledge of evolutionary theory when he wrote his more famous papers. The lines between what is natural human behaviour and what are social constructs were much more blurred before the brand new line of research that spawned from Darwin's science.
What I'm implying is: we know, today, that it's perfectly natural for humans to hoard resources and that most of us have very small circles to which we'll extend our favor. Some people care only about themselves, most care only about their close family and friends.
My point is this: capitalism works not because it is the superior theory, but because it is supported by our evolutionary history. My willing to provide the best for my family and I drives me to create newer and better products and services that will indirectly benefit all of mankind. I am simply not capable of caring for so many people as to justify communism. I'm aware that people are starving to death in africa at this very moment, but I've never seen them and don't give a shit about them. My own status is more important to me because all my ancestors cared more about themselves than the animals they couldn't see, and that's what made them survive and evolve.

How does socialist theory deal with that?

[Anonymous No.8799592]

>>8799458
Yeah sounds about right, not sure if you're implying that's a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.8799603]

>>8799267
And maybe Dr. A, because of some life experience or some other random shit, isn't available to be on-call, or would be more likely to fuck up if he did come in after-hours. Good thing Dr. B is a trained and internally-motivated physician with a decent work-life balance perfectly capable of performing the same function, as is Dr. C, and Dr. D, and Dr. E...

[Anonymous No.8799605]

>>8799517
This

[Anonymous No.8799615]

>>8799221
Mind defining market-form?

[Anonymous No.8799645]

>>8799517
When we reach singularity, "you" will be the human race, and when you think about surviving, you will be considering the human race as a whole. How are we supposed to act in the meantime to get the best results in the long term? That's the question.

[Anonymous No.8799659]

>>8799603
>internally-motivated
Ha, good one
There's no such thing

[Anonymous No.8799662]

>>8799603
You know nothing about finding a good doctor in the real world, lemme guess, still sitting in the pediatrician's office while Mom signs you in? Doctors don't just come all packing the same experiences and the same skill set, within groups there are variations on the level of skill of individuals, yes even highly trained ones, if Dr. A is needed because he's the best doctor around, then there won't be a life event preventing him from attending his patient, (and if there something that can stop him from doing his motherfucking job of saving human lives then, he isn't the best doctor around now is he?) because he plans ahead, it's fucking possible to prevent a lot of unexpected accidents with simple foresight, maybe if the commies had this they would've seen the gulag in front of them before they had gotten to it's gates.

[Anonymous No.8799668]

>>8799645
That's not a satisfying answer. Through capitalism we are bound to reach this singularity you speak of much much faster. To me that is the "best result long term"

[Anonymous No.8799675]

Why would anyone in a business forum care about marxism?

[Anonymous No.8799694]

>>8799662
Good doctors, who train for a decade in med school and take shit seriously are so routined and disciplined that it would literally take a one in a million type event to throw off their shit, if you had even one ounce of integrity and conscientiousness you'd know.

[Anonymous No.8799699]

>>8799517
smith's work came out long before that. the idea of capitalistic "free trade" was already an idea, and a popular one at that before marx

[Anonymous No.8799713]

>>8799517
>virtue signalling can an effective way to attract a mate
>natural selection begins to favor collectivist individuals

Evolution works forward just as well as it does in hindsight. If humans want to make it on an intergalactic level, the "in-group" will have to expand to all humanity eventually. Socialism is not something that can be forced, but when humanity is ready for it, it will be the obvious outcome as the Capitalist structure slowly transitions to it in a post-scarcity world.

[Anonymous No.8799724]

>>8799675
Ugly stupid, and poor people are much more likely to desire rearranging society to gain benefits they dont deserve. Look up biological marxism.

[Anonymous No.8799759]

>>8799713
>structure slowly transitions to it in a post-scarcity world.

Marx definition of post-scarcity was achieved decades ago. It's being constantly re-defined, human ambition is infinite, post scarcity implies a state of satisfaction that is just not in human nature.

[Anonymous No.8799763]

I’m not interested in a “conversation”, as implementation of his ideas would put me at a disadvantage for reproduction and survival.

[Anonymous No.8799766]

>>8799517

Well, first of all, Engels read Origin of the Species as soon as it was published, and Marx read it in 1860. He had this to say about it:

“In my times of trial [illness] during the last four weeks -I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book on Natural Selection. Although it is developed in a crude English way, this is the book that contains the natural-history foundation of our view point.”

So by the time he was publishing his important economic work (namely, Capital) he had already read Darwin.

Though I don't really think having read Darwin is that important to his economic work as...

> What I'm implying is: we know, today, that it's perfectly natural for humans to hoard resources and that most of us have very small circles to which we'll extend our favor. Some people care only about themselves, most care only about their close family and friends.

...isn't a unique idea prior to Darwin, nor is it something lost on Marx. Marx uses the word Gattungswesen, which he borrows from Feuerbach, and which is generally translated as "species-being". For Marx, the nature of man is fluid forming to the social context it finds itself in, but biological drives, including the drive to reproduce one's own means of subsistence and acquire resources stay constant regardless of context.

> I am simply not capable of caring for so many people as to justify communism.

Marx' critiques of capitalism are centered on the coercive centralization of property by the state, the fettishization of commodification and the market form that this creates, and the underlying tensions between the laboring and business classes which make capitalism unsustainable and create a boom-bust business cycle.

Though Marx is more interested in analysis of the contemporaneous economic structure and the history of events which lead to that structure, where he does discuss communism he's not actually talking about... [comment too long]

[Anonymous No.8799795]

>>8799766
>>8799517
>>8799605

...something that would require you to actually care about anyone but yourself to function. He's merely talking about production and exchange without distortion via state consolidation of property.

[Anonymous No.8799801]

>>8799713
Lmao
>"ur gonna need me in your space empire"
>Uhh okay what can you do, we need a deck hand, a cook, a-
>DO??? WOW I THOUGHT THIS WAS SPACE I THOUGHT WE'RE IN THE FUTURE???? CANT U JUST USE YOUR RESOURCES ON ME REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT I CONTRIBUTE THANKS

[Anonymous No.8799812]

>>8799724
Thank you, someone putting it clearly

[Anonymous No.8799823]

>>8799615

The market form is just the form of exchange in which one person swaps a commodity (or representation of a money-commodity, like a paper dollar) for another commodity previously held by another person.

[Anonymous No.8799829]

>>8799795
I'm not going to ever give a single shit about anyone other than myself or my family, because you won't give a shit about mine. If so, I'll post my wallet and we can see whether you can put your money where your mouth is

[Anonymous No.8799851]

>>8799675

can't be a brainwashed wagecuck if you want to make money speculating.

[Anonymous No.8799858]

>>8799713
History is proof that not all humans need to live for the world to improve over time,
6 million Jews died and what's left of them is still enough to kike the world over.

[Anonymous No.8799859]

>>8799801
>first they came for Andromeda and I said nothing, because I'm not an Adrogina
>then they came for Jupiter colony and I said nothing, because I'm not a Ju
>then they came for Earth and there no humans left to speak for me

4chan in 3045.

[Anonymous No.8799865]

>>8799592

Not saying its a bad or good thing, though it is the result of large scale thefts of land. Make of that what you will.

[Anonymous No.8799867]

>>8799851
Lmao

[Anonymous No.8799886]

>>8799865
Oh boo hoo, who's gonna give all that land back? Jesus? Mohammed? How bout stop whining and get to work, maybe then you'll have some meaning in your life.

[Anonymous No.8799889]

>>8796937
>>8796959
I don't even know why you're bothering, half the people who criticize Marx have never read more than a single fucking sentence of Capital, if that. Like there's plenty to critique when it comes to modern attempts to enact the philosophy but holy shit at least figure out what you're talking about, damn

le helicoptorr xDDD

[Anonymous No.8799900]

>>8799829

> If so, I'll post my wallet and we can see whether you can put your money where your mouth is

My mouth is saying I don't give a shit about you or your family, and that the idea that people are self-interested (or at least, that interest only extends to a small group of people they know well) wasn't lost on Marx. So I'm not sure what posting your wallet is supposed to do other than get you banned for begging.

[Anonymous No.8799904]

>>8799713
Lmao I bet this nigga just waiting for the galactic "in group" to expand to him instead of just working at McDonald's and saving for a few years.

[Anonymous No.8799916]

>>8799886

I don't need to work, I'm wealthy.

Also, stop virtue signaling.

[Anonymous No.8799925]

>>8799766
>Marx' critiques of capitalism are centered on the coercive centralization of property by the state, the fettishization of commodification and the market form that this creates, and the underlying tensions between the laboring and business classes which make capitalism unsustainable and create a boom-bust business cycle.
>Though Marx is more interested in analysis of the contemporaneous economic structure and the history of events which lead to that structure, where he does discuss communism he's not actually talking about something that would require you to actually care about anyone but yourself to function. He's merely talking about production and exchange without distortion via state consolidation of property.

I'm too fucking dense to understand any of these points. Isn't the coercive centralization of property precisely a communist thing? what is fetishization of commodification? how does a society centered around "to each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities" not require me to care about others to function properly?

[Anonymous No.8799951]

>>8799916
Oof keep that mentality, the brightest stars burn out the fastest son.

[Anonymous No.8799969]

>>8799823
So what did you mean when you said Capitalism requires market form to sustain itself?

It would be better if in the future you avoid being so opaque.

>Capitalism fetishizes the specifically, the value required to attract the investment capital needed to maintain a competitive organic composition of capital form because it's necessary for capitalist production to sustain itself

Literally what the fuck.

[Anonymous No.8799972]

>>8799713

>post scarcity world

[Anonymous No.8800028]

>>8799916
I'm not going to stop virtue signaling you 18-34 year old shitwad, the inherent propensity to point to the shared life experiences between two parties is the benefit of virtues. But of course when one party is too young they generally blind to the state of the world as it is.

[Anonymous No.8800037]

>>8797763
>>8797927
>>8797954
>>8798029
>everything I can't understand is a conspiracy against me
this is your brain on /pol/

[Anonymous No.8800041]

>>8799969
It's just how they speak, smugness is inherent; actual intelligence lacking.

[Anonymous No.8800051]

>>8800037
At least those mongs have the braincells to know that communism is inherently a lie.

[Anonymous No.8800239]

>>8799925

> Isn't the coercive centralization of property precisely a communist thing?

The idea that it is is something that was beneficial to the soviet propaganda model, as it allowed them to depict seizing property from industrial workers as somehow being communism (an extremely popular idea in Europe at the time) while also being beneficial to the western propaganda model as it allowed western states to conflate labor movements with state action. In either case, the goal is to construe capitalist production (soviet or western) as a liberating force for the working class, rather than a continuation of slavery.

Check it: https://chomsky.info/1986____/

However, there were no communists during the primitive accumulations of capital which allowed capitalism to form. Colonization and enclosure stripped a formerly-peasant and free-laborer classes of their land, putting them in the position of having to rent themselves out in order to temporarily regain access to the land which was taken from them. Relevant section from Marx' Capital: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm

> what is fetishization of commodification

Economic fetishization is when one mode of doing things becomes dominant because the macroeconomy dictates it despite not necessarily being the best form of interaction on a case-by-case basis.

> how does a society centered around "to each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities" not require me to care about others to function properly?

The idea being expressed in "to each according to his needs, etc..." is that without fetishization of the market form and estranged ownership of production meeting agricultural needs of a community (a group of people who do know each other well, and already have established relationships based on reputation) in most contexts is trivial. [too long]

[Anonymous No.8800254]

>>8800239
>>8799925

...Problems arise when a class of people is alienated from the land they need to produce their means of subsistence, and is required to dedicate the land to whatever cash crop is most profitable, then export the produce rather than using it themselves.