/lit/ - Literature

>>13372226
Why can't the workers write their own philosophy?

The owner owns the capital which includes the land and the production facilities. The workers are in contractual agreement that they are compensated for their work and that they don't control the production line. If the workers don't like it then they can start their own business and run it according their own desires. Workers are expendable but entrepreneurs are not. that's the reality that leftists can't face.

>>13372579
/thread
Commiefags stop fucking thinking. I can smell your brain fumes from here.

>>13372226
Too busy working EC you pseud.

>>13372579
T. Born with a silver spoon.

You bootlickers fail to acknowledge not everyone is born into privilege.
Full on communism is retarded. BUT, when there is more than enough to go around, like in America, everyone’s base should be covered. Regardless of IQ, drive and motivation level.

>>13372579
just gain capital to invest from thin air bro

>>13372579
>owns

>>13372226
They obviously can, they just choose not to.

>>13372609

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Just stop anon you are giving me stomachache.

>>13372226
I bet no one on this thread has ever made a sale, let alone a cold call.

>>13372609
>literally all butthurt seething

>>13372609
>wahh I exist
What do you suppose we do? Usurp the CEO/Entrapreneur who created the jobs for a market economy in the first place? Capitalism exemplifies and rewards the very human tendency to strive, which in turn rewards itself. Think of it like working out. You're fat and lazy? Well, get your ass up, run, and make a habit of it. You will adapt, naturally. Maybe one day you develop an amazing body and you start to see the world through a different lens; one of achievement and motivation to continue. Maybe people even start asking you to train them in the art-form. Hell, maybe they even show you appreciation because you're good at what you do. Then, some pissants throw a tantrum because of a shanty political environment coupled with riots and decide that running is a waste of time and that each person is entitled to the work you put in to improve the minds, bodies, and lives of many. They compete with you and decide that they will take your position. This is the essence of communism, and within this essence lies the un-moving capitalist spirit.

If you say everyone's base should be covered, I imagine you wouldn't mind building an empire under your own feet only to have it stripped piece by piece by people who go through live without any principle, fucking and leaving offspring to continue leeching off YOUR work.

Communism is fucking dangerous. Work harder. Network, and stop bitching. We live in a time with an abundance of resources. If lib faggots aren't over their complex within the next 10 years there's bound to be a gruesome war whose roots subsist on the polarity with which this principle is received.

>>13372609
>T. Born with a silver spoon.
I'm a poor immigrant. The demographic that leftists supposedly cater to. I've been around the poor folks and all I can anecdotally say is that they are even more immoral than the plutocrats. They lack the competence to carry out their greed to the same degree as the elites. There are problems with the current system such as wealth inequality and over consumption. It's an undisputed fact but the problem with leftists is that they don't realize that the problems can be fixed within the current paradigm instead of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water'.

>>13372609
>everyone’s base should be covered. Regardless of IQ, drive and motivation level.
Why?

>>13372609
Why do you think that this idea is somehow incompatible with capitalism?
We already practice this in the United States, with food stamps, Social Security, and whatnot.
The only issue is that programs are generally shitty, and they should be improved, if a program should be implemented it should be implemented well.

>>13372682
Because made up morals bla bla bla

>>13372226
workers are dumb monkeys that can't manage resources for shit, hence why they are workers and not chad management. You have to know how to hire stockbrokers before you can get a nice investment portfolio that redcoat has. Think about all those lottery winners spending their capital on retarded shit and wasting their newfound fortune. I've never heard about a Fortune 500 who started with capital from a lottery. Being a merchant takes skills that workers don't have. If workers have that skill, they work in cooperatives and unionized trades instead of nationalizing the economy like dumb retards.

>>13372636
>>13372652
>property is a spook
Sorry to say that there needs to be a system in place for a society to function and those systems will always be oppressive in some way. You can live in your decadent anarchist fantasies in your head because it will never translate in real life.

>>13372579
>>13372583
>see minimum wage
>see short staffing
>see planned obsolescence
>see manufactured demand
>see workplace competition
>see unpaid overtime
>see sick days
>see vacation days
>see maternity leave
>see anti-union propaganda
>see unethical business practices
>see unused money
>see money hoarding

Providing means for production deserves a percent of the profit. Not 99% of profits. Workers deserve pay equal to their contribution. That you think how it is now only proves how fucking brainwashed you are.
You work 8 hours a day, five days a week, you should have enough money to live on, period. You should not need a second job, or a loan, or government aid.
If you are sick, you should be allowed convalescence, period. You should be given enough vacation time to actually relax. You should be allowed to take that vacation time without being afraid of repercussions.

Everyone deserves a decent fucking life, full stop. Every person deserves a warm, dry place to sleep, clean water, food, and means to express themselves. That you think otherwise is brainwashing.
Working hard should mean that you can buy that new BMW. It should be that you can afford luxuries. It should not mean that if you work hard, you won't starve to death.
There should be a level of quality of life that everybody starts at. Poor people shouldn't have to suffer. If a person wants to be rich, let them be rich, but not at the expense of everyone else. People seem to think that if people are provided universal means of... what existing? that rich people won't be able to be rich anymore.
I've heard this argument about universal healthcare before and it's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. Universal aid doesn't mean that private companies and luxuries won't exist.

I hate this. I hate that this is even an argument. I hate that this is a fucking debate.
People deserve to live with dignity. It doesn't take a lot of money. It isn't outrageous. Basic income is a thing that exists and works. In fact, it's been proven that people who are not afraid of not having enough money to survive work harder and better.

If you work a full-time job, and don't have enough money to live decently, something is wrong.

>>13372719
>Everyone deserves a decent fucking life
why

>>13372719
>see minimum wage
>see sick days
>see vacation days
>see maternity leave
all of these things are benefits to the workers though, why are they on this list

>>13372719
>should should should
Justify any of your moralizing you fucking leftist faggot

>>13372674
>>13372663
>>13372654
>>13372675
>>13372676
>9-5 wagecucks

>>13372682
>>13372696
Leaving morals aside. If everyone had their bases covered, crime and disease would potentially decrease.

>>13372719
>Everyone deserves a decent fucking life, full stop.
How do marxists respond to the argument that what constitutes a decent life changes with time and requires more and more resources. A decent life 200 years ago is not the same as a decent life today. Examples would be showers, cars and more expensive food

>>13372727
>>13372682
Retard skeptic

>>13372719
>Everyone deserves a decent fucking life, full stop.
Nope, sorry. Life is what you make of it.

>>13372739
>human life is inherently valuable
lmaoing my ass off

>>13372739
I'm not even both of those posts, nigger.

>>13372735
>crime and disease would potentially decrease.
Care to substantiate that claim?

>>13372719
>deserve pay equal
that's called a wage
>You work 8 hours a day, five days a week, you should have enough money to live on, period
I would a gree with you, if you dont mean buying the same luxury iphone every year type of 'just living.'
>If a person wants to be rich, let them be rich, but not at the expense of everyone else
Brainlet.
>I've heard this argument about universal healthcare before and it's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. Universal aid doesn't mean that private companies and luxuries won't exist.
Yeah, but the existence of a new governmnet pseudo monopoly will drive up the price of private service. Private health care is available in the UK but only the rich can afford because the crap, massively bloated, nhs exists. In canada private health care is illegal.
>
I hate this. I hate that this is even an argument. I hate that this is a fucking debate.
People deserve to live with dignity. It doesn't take a lot of money. It isn't outrageous. Basic income is a thing that exists and works. In fact, it's been proven that people who are not afraid of not having enough money to survive work harder and better.
emotional manipulation
>If you work a full-time job, and don't have enough money to live decently, something is wrong.
indeed, inflation coupled with the collapsing pyramid scheme 'eternal growth,' economy.

>>13372747
Crime isn’t a result of race, it’s a result of finance.

Now get back to work, goy.

>>13372719
First ethically justify why egalitarianism should be enforced instead of going on a typical lefty diatribe.

>>13372735
>if you disagree you're a KEK!!!!
well said my good man
but can you explain why free men should not be allowed to enter contracts which stipulate that they are to be paid in exchange for their labor?

>>13372719
>Workers deserve pay equal to their contribution.
Most workers already do receive this pay. Maybe if workers stop comparing themselves to the people in Ferraris who retreat to their fresh teen-slut fill yacht on the weekends, they wouldn't create phantasmal enemies.

I'm not making an argument FOR unethical buisness tactics/strategy. Every and all leader should work towards producing or rendering high quality products or services. I agree that there is a level of greed that must be actively addressed. Attacking capitalism is not the way to do it. Those are just the devil's dues. If you eat a nice stake you're bound to shit eventually. Full stop.

People should not be in debt either. However, the manner by which these problems are approached are massively ineffective. It's a shame that the government is so closely intertwined with corporations to the point that we can't tell where one stops and the other begins. We live in a time with an unprecedented population. Because of this, it's smarter for the smart people to charade while they can and outrun the system to win. This is not right. Only a marginal few actively straddle the golden mean, and these people are usually busy weathering bullshit.

To fix this we as members of a society need to devise ways to better divide tasks among all workers, rich and poor alike, and partition the outcomes with respect to the industry/locale/or area of influence. Obviously this is a very hard thing to do correctly, since communication between disciplines builds effectively, but we're in a time that doesn't need building; we need modification, reinforcement, and optimization.

Anons, what would you do?

>>13372768
Read my post again. Nowhere did I argue against the compensation of labor.

>>13372719
>Workers deserve pay equal to their contribution. That you think how it is now only proves how fucking brainwashed you are.
>You work 8 hours a day, five days a week, you should have enough money to live on, period. You should not need a second job, or a loan, or government aid.
>If you are sick, you should be allowed convalescence, period. You should be given enough vacation time to actually relax. You should be allowed to take that vacation time without being afraid of repercussions.

that's how it is in the rest of the world, only 3rd world americans will see a problem with this

>>13372226
ExistentialComics is a socdem retard.

>>13372738
How is this "argument" supposed to challenge Marxism in any way? I see nothing to respond to.

>>13372784
>not real "x"

>>13372768
>free men
Stopped reading therr

>>13372776
Read it again?
"9-5 wagecucks"
???

embarrassing thread.

>>13372719
You're a good person anon, ignore the rest of the dissenters. Your morality is in the right place - these things should be self-evident, but our heartless world has made people to forget that, and see them as luxuries.

>>13372798
>"i wuz here"

>>13372798
it's /pol/ tier bait and the brainlets need to respond to low hanging fruit.

>>13372738
>How do marxists respond
That's why there's a difference between needs and demands.
Well, if any theory fully takes history into account that's marxism.
There's no rebuttal in what you just said. Yes, needs are historical, also are standards of good health as so as leisure is. But needs are not demands.
Also, means of production/technology has developed throughout history, so the actual marginal cost of producing a pair of good quality shoes is not comparable to that of producing a fragile pair of shoes on another historical time and place.

>>13372780
>*cough cough* uh shit boss I was drinking until 4 this morning and now im (((sick))) and the government mandates you let me stay at home and masturbate with pay!

>>13372787
Co-op capitalism is capitalism.

>>13372798
yeah it's pretty cringe

>consumer based economic systems
Full retarded, the producers always have an insane power imbalance.

>>13372804
>dissenter
>morality is in the right place
>these things should be self evident
>heartless world
You are the worst kind of lefty. Brainless ideologue. Never engages in any dialogue and has the ego appoint oneself as a moral arbiter .

>>13372226
It's been argued that the owners provided the infrastructure and initial investment in the means of production. They also provide up keep for everything the company needs to function (bathrooms, internet, etc). This isn't necessary a knock down argument but it's an ok point to make.

>>13372579
And how did the owners get ownership of this capital in the first place hmm?

>>13372719
>Everyone deserves a decent fucking life, full stop. Every person deserves a warm, dry place to sleep, clean water, food, and means to express themselves. That you think otherwise is brainwashing.
The only brainwashing that has occurred is whatever made you believe that humanity, life, or consciousness is sacred.

>>13372832
and you're a robot

>>13372675
>Capitalism exemplifies and rewards the very human tendency to strive, which in turn rewards itself. Think of it like working out. You're fat and lazy? Well, get your ass up, run, and make a habit of it. You will adapt, naturally
This is just appealing to 'human nature'. This doesn't take into account the fact that a worker will always only be paid less than what they produce. You can argue human nature seems to assert that humans will strive but that doesn't mean the worker needs to be exploited in this system. If you don't agree with the worker being exploited then keep in mind I mean it in the way Marx talked about it and defined it.

>>13372773
The future is already here.

>>13372858
The irony of you using the NPC meme.

>>13372751
>>You work 8 hours a day, five days a week, you should have enough money to live on, period
>I would a gree with you, if you dont mean buying the same luxury iphone every year type of 'just living
Really? Because living on minimum wage gets you a lot less money than what is needed for an iphone let alone food and housing in many places.

>>13372886
>n-no u

typical NPC behavior lmao, update your programming.

>>13372773
>Workers deserve pay equal to their contribution.
>Most workers already do receive this pay.
No they don't. Otherwise the company would by definition not be gaining a profit.

>>13372892
>>13372886
Feel free to keep arguing uselessly, but could the two of you at least sage your posts? Asking for a friend.

>>13372817
This happens no where you retard.

>>13372773
p based

>>13372891
glad to see you agree with my other points.

>>13372900
yeah and it's fucked up, the lowest of the low, disgusting.

First, firms will privatize and we'll experience a more intense version of race-related tensions than we did back before diversity initiatives were implemented. Private firms will implement a rough version of this and work carefully to fuck with the clients they don't want.

Second, social security will privatize and the lukewarm social tension currently present will escalate into full on riots. Attention will shift to augmented versions of past social movements such as occupy wall st and black lives matter.

Third, the gap between the weathly and poor will widen to such an extent that we will be able to rub our eyes and see the Aristocracy sprouting.

With a global economy, there are some nations, specifically the periphery countries responsible to the core's labor, who will grow increasingly enraged until more subversive terrorist tactics are attempted. The strong countries will strongarm those who think are responsible. The poor in our country won't care cause their children can go to war and get nicely compensated.

Political and economic theorist's heads will be spinning because things will happen so fast and almost unnoticed at first until the band snaps and we wake up.

>>13372804
He’s a scummy cultist who worships the false god of humanity. He is the worst kind of person alive, and he makes the world worse by holding these thoughts.

>>13372892
Are you capable of anything but memespeak? Must be neuron deficiency.

>>13372925

>>13372751
>I hate this. I hate that this is even an argument. I hate that this is a fucking debate.
This is a parody post right?

>hurr durr caring about poor people is good!
>hurr durr you shouldn't just take what you want from people because reasons
>hurr durr muh empathy ;_;
Jesus Christ why are lefties such pathetic bleeding heart faggots? I can't wait til CWII so I can saw through the neck of one of these crybaby virtue signalers with my big ass hunting knife.

>>13372933
That's a quote from him i fucked up the greentext.

>>13372727
>>13372733
>>13372742
>>13372745
>>13372856
Satanic materialists, kys.

>>13372935
Imagine being such a cuck that you argue might makes right while not having any might

>>13372832
That other guy, who called you an NPC, is not me. I can't argue for these positions, as they're pretty self-evident to me. It's like arguing why you should eat food and drink water - it's something you do instinctively. For me, helping others is the same way. I want to see a world where every sentient being, both humans and animals, are happy and healthy. Anything less is injustice, in my book.

>>13372922
"Worships the false God of humanity"? Is that what the jaded members of this world are now calling "being compassionate and considerate of other human beings"? Truly, we have degenerated in our spiritual core - that much is clear. And capitalism can be partially blamed for such.

>>13372946
Shut the fuck up you little lefty faggot. I could slice you up in a second.

What is the argument even here?

Like, what the fuck is her position meant to be? "Company"? "Owner" Is she a stock owner? CEO? Head of Board?

> Why cant the workers just sell their products directly on the market
That's what the workers of the company do. CEO heads that operation in a limited liability corporation, having the ultimate authority on designing the strategy and execution of financial acts.

>>13372854
You can dispute the concept of inheritance but you can never make the case that the worker should own the capital instead.

>>13372935
You sound like such a terrible person, my goodness. It bothers me so much to know that our political environment has reached such a stage that individuals like yourselves are not uncommonly found within our society. Please develop some empathy, anon. The fact you desire blood for individuals who are suffering just like you are, indicates how backwards capitalism has made our world. Please, breathe in and remember that everyone here is enduring a form of hell, and all of us merely trying to get by. Also, you paint "liberals" as being weak and bleeding-heart here, while also pinning a worldwide, globalist conspiracy on their shoulders, two identities which cannot align together. If I'm a bleeding-heart, then I must be in all respects. And for the record, wanting everyone in society to be well does not mean I'm a "bleeding-heart", it means my empathy facilities are functioning as they should. Yours will too someday, hopefully.

>>13372895
>equal to their contribution.
Since we disagree, let's both agree on what constitutes "contribution".

>This is just appealing to 'human nature'.
You're exactly right.
>This doesn't take into account the fact that a worker will always only be paid less than what they produce.
Not produce. Contribute. Workers' contribution to their company/family/society are all different variables in equations that interact with each other in strange and sometimes non-intuitive ways. If you work for go-pro and put out 10 cameras at 100$ each in a day, you have to be realistic about the division of that revenue so the company can grow an the worker can come back and do it again so he can go to the store and feed his family. If the profit is 1000$, there needs to be a division of pay based on the resources, labor and livelihoods of ll those involved in production. The CEO invented the product. Gave worker man a stable position, and in returns wrestles with the electric fence in order to keep himself stable as well. If worker doesn't like making cameras for a living, it's his DUTY to report to the people who have been delegated more power and make a case that he deserves more, or a new position, or a more advanced job to utilize his cognitive capabilities. Workers are only robots if they let themselves be.

We have to address human nature. An idiot may love it; easy job, enough income to support his habits/interests. One who seeks a family wants to take responsibility to put food in mouths? Great. That's a man. Give him a new position and let him surmount the challenge he's decided to undertake. People fail. People succeed. This is human nature. No economic system has been in play long enough to incite perfect harmony with our needs and wants so that everyone is completely happy. There have been fragments of philosophical works that trace this vein, but it's a work in progress, just as putting food in mouths is.

>>13372727
why not?

>>13372730
they are, but they're used as weapons and it's pitiable. Compare them to how they are in other countries.

>>13372733
You first, asshole. the American government spends billions a year on military. Half of that could easily support the citizens of the US in meaningful was.

>>13372738
So? That's not an argument, it's true, and it doesn't change anything. A warm place to sleep, enough food, enough water, means to self actualize, and keep healthy. That's a small, functioning apartment, means of transport (bike/public transport/ car, etc depending on location), food, clothes, and enough funds for a basic laptop and a couple paintings or something. That's not a lot. It's not unreasonable, and most importantly, it's not undoable. All of that would be covered by basic income.

>>13372742
Typical capitalist cult member. You live in a system designed to diminish your efforts and oppress you, and you actually believed the fuckers that it's "fair". Even looking at other countries, you think, "yeah, look at those losers, they've got universal health care and unions, like the socialst cucks they are."

>>13372751
Idiot

>>13372762
We live in a society. We contribute to society. The health of the individual makes for a healthier society. People who are healthy and happy work harder, longer, better. Giving people the means to study, work, live, on their own terms allows for a society in which people have the chance to explore more, learn more, study more. Most people want to contribute, the same way most people awkwardly go "Uh... can I do anything?" if they're sitting in a room full of people doing shit. You give people enough means with which they can contribute in a way they feel satisfied with, instead of a way they feel forced to, and you get a society in which there is less poverty, less bitterness, because people feel less trapped. All that means less "bad areas", crime, drug use. This has been proven over and over again. The happier a society is, the more everyone in the society profits, including you.

>>13372817
Dumbshit cult member.
>"Anon, we don't pay 95% of you living wages because sometimes people come in drunk. Isn't that fair? 5% of people abuse the system Anon. To fight this, we're just not giving money to anybody who needs it. Isn't that fair? If you work harder, maybe I'll give you enough for your asthma medicine this month, okay?"

>>13372856
Sacred is something else. We're talking about letting the rich abuse the lower classes, and twits like you believing their bullshit.

>>13372579
That's it boys: Destitution is no more.

>>13372719
I'm literally choking up reading this - such words, asserting merely the most fundamental truths, should not bring sentimentality out of me. Yet, they are so absent from our culture that it seems the sight of them has done exactly that. Bless you anon, your soul is truly uncorrupted, unlike these cold and cruel businesspeople around you. Always retain this moral core of yours. The world will always need it.

>>13373013
>we're just not giving money to anybody who needs it.

lol nobody does this or is arguing for this

>>13373013
>idiot

>>13372922
what the fuck are you on about

>>13372719
Dumb socdem. Become a demsoc already. You're almost there. The problem is capitalism. As long as there's an owner class, the amount of economic power they control will always allow them to find loopholes in regulations you create, or else lobby to create loopholes themselves, or else work to reverse the law in the long game like they keep successfully doing: see Glass-Steagal getting repealed and the top marginal tax rate going from 94% to 37% today.
It's the capitalism, stupid.

>>13373034
>I'm going to say something so stupid there's no point in replying, and then use the fact that anon isn't going to engage with my dumbshit opinion as means to invalidate them

I love threads about Marxism, where no one read Marx, or any other socialist thinker for that matter.
while I don't agree completetly with >>13372719, his/her heart is in the right place.

>>13372963
The fact that you call it instinctive can be debated in itself. Seems like your position boils down to you projecting your desires on the world rather than adhering to an external maxim. Humanism is dangerous as it can strip away liberty for the sake of the "greater good".

>>13372719
>Everyone deserves

>>13373039
>The problem is capitalism.
No shit.

>>13372998
Excellent bait, anon.

>>13373046
>can't explain why it's stupid so i win

>>13373013
>The happier a society is, the more everyone in the society profits, including you.
Sure but you see how I can you your same reasoning to support any other political doctrine, even fascism.

>>13373050
in the sense of an amoral universe? no
in the sense that we, as humans, are not amoral? yes

>>13373039
>remove the precedent of ownership of the means of production
>some means of rendering a good/service is owned by the workers
>they gain what they contribute
People don't contribute equally. Now what? Cut off the underachievers? Force them to work harder? Then we're back to square one.

Let's keep it going.
>some product is making a group of people wealthy
>the product is associated with the wealth of these people
>others feel like they can contribute more
>maybe they feel like they make as much as the owners of production
>the market saturates after competition, and we're back to square one; The means of production are owned by groups of people who hold ample power over their respective devices
Back to square one. What happens if the demand of a product/service exhausts?

Here, maybe:
>creative man/men attempt to invent something after many many hours of effort and collaboration
Already back to square one. We end up with a saturation of useless shit that people don't need. At this point, the smarter thing to do would be to create demand trough manipulation. Square. One.

>allow them to find loopholes in regulations you create
If a regulation is viewed as a hurdle to accomplishing some specific task, a creative circumvention will be found and performed. This is what life does.

>>13372226
>DUUUUDE WHY CAN'T WE JUST HAVE ANARCHISM
Grow up

>>13373048
>if you disagree with marx that means you havent read him
This is why nobody takes you seriously

>>13373076
It would make sense to me that a society would try to fashion itself in such a way that those who sought a good quality of living should be able to achieve it by reasonable means.
But to simply gift a quality life to anyone simply by virtue of their "humanity" is silly.

>>13372817
oh wow one idiots out of many abuse their benefits so that means the whole system should be scrapped.

stop fucking worrying about single individuals so much americuck and worry about society as a whole and how to promote cohesion you mong.

>>13373049
Say someone were to argue that violence were tolerable in every and all situations, such that they felt nothing wrong with a world in which every individual can and did physically harm other individuals, how would you ever argue against them? How would you argue the position that violence is harmful and to be avoided, in any sense, if they simply feel differently? In my case, I genuinely don't understand how or why I could argue for compassion being shown to all beings, and consideration given to all of their needs, to someone who did not agree with these axioms. Just as you or another might begin with the premise that "individuals are intrinsically selfish, and should concern themselves with their own needs primarily", I would say "individuals are intrinsically empathetic, and should concern themselves with achieving a state where the needs of all have been met", and both statements correctly describe a different segment of the population.

We all have different axioms regarding the nature of reality and society, and if we don't agree on them, it's very difficult to even enter a discussion.

>>13372719
Just wanted to wish you well again, anon. World needs more people like you.

>>13372226
Because it needs caracter, something that a braindead worker would never have.

>>13373055
Not bait, anon.

>>13373134
But that's not the argument. If you've read enough of Marx you can clearly distinguish people who disagree with his actual positions from people who disagree with an imaginary strawman based on beliefs espoused by some rando leftist retards on Reddit who have never read Marx themselves. And it's purely a matter of probability that the vast majority of disagreement on fucking 4chan of all places is going to be of the latter kind, especially since here not even on the "Literature" board does anybody actually read anything.

>>13372609
>wagecuck calls them the bootlickers
If it's so easy living a silver spoon lifestyle, why didn't your ancestors do it if they wanted to secure a future for you?

>>13372226
Because they do? What the fuck is this argument? I owned my own business for 4 years and I contracted. Literally anybody can do this. Put an ad in the paper and get working, simple.
If this is an argument specifically against people working as employee's (which they are by no means forced to) then what the fuck do you think a wage is? Its a portion of the total profit of the business that they contribute to. They are directly earning from their production.
Marxists seem to have a really hard time understanding the role of a "Leader" and why a Leader would earn more than his followers.
I dont think I even need to explain the obvious but there is typically a shit load more work involved with managing hundreds of people than there is cleaning toilets or whatever the fuck the peons do.
Its time to grow up, Marx was a fucking moron.

>>13373179
>How would you argue the position that violence is harmful and to be avoided, in any sense, if they simply feel differently?
It all depends on the definition of harm and that's heart of the matter. Sure you can say violence is harmful but does that mean pacifism is beneficial? No pacifism won't stop a rapist from raping your dog. In that instance violence is preferred. In the same manner most political doctrines define harm in different manner and justify heinous acts. Compassion is not a virtue in itself. It becomes a virtue when applied in the right manner otherwise it's worse than a sin because it feigns as a virtue.

>>13373139
>But to simply gift a quality life to anyone simply by virtue of their "humanity" is silly.
I don't think so. I'm not talking about gifts, I'm talking about a base standard. I'm talking about Maslow's hierarchy of needs. There's no room for luxury, in that sense. No extravagant vacations or expensive jewelry or going out to eat every day, etc,etc,etc. The luxuries would be what a person would work for.

I think at minimum, everyone should be able to think "Well, I don't have a lot, but I have enough."

>>13373254
You're not addressing Marx, you're addressing two panels from a web comic made by some random retard.

>>13373275
Alright well, Marx does believe that the workers should own the means of production doesn't he? I think my argument still applies.

>>13372735
>Leaving morals aside. If everyone had their bases covered, crime and disease would potentially decrease.
"potentially" lmfao
you know that youth crime goes up in the summer, right? and it's not because kids aren't getting free school lunches.

>>13373302
He believes that the entire society will own the means of production after capitalism has been transcended. Your argument doesn't apply, since Marx didn't in any way deny the need for "leadership" or management. Here's Engels:
>"In this society [the Bakuninist ideal future society] there will above all be no authority, for authority = state = absolute evil. (How these people propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without a will that decides in the last resort, without a single management, they of course do not tell us).

>>13373270
The problem here is that your conception of "right" will again still relate to an axiom of yours, which I might disagree with. I do consider compassion a virtue in itself, albeit one that still requires sensible application. But if a person argued, as you believe, that compassion is not intrinsically virtuous or valuable, then I simply have no means of changing their mind about such.

>>13373361
That sounds like the same thing to me. If he acknowledges the role of leadership then why is the denial of the leadership principle the main criticism against Marxism? It also seems to be a common theme with Marxists that they all believe managers are inherently evil people and they should be managed by a committee of employee's.
I also dont understand how there can be an "after capitalism" that doesnt involve barter trade of some sort, which still involves private ownership.

>>13373013
> Sacred is something else. We're talking about letting the rich abuse the lower classes, and twits like you believing their bullshit.
I believe n drastically reforming the economic system and seizing the wealth of nearly all who have it, but I don’t do it for whatever sentimental concept of humanity you worship. Human bodies are an obstacle to civilization all greatness, and the human identity is should be of the lowest consideration, below all other identities. There’s far more that the political apparatus can achieve than lavishing comforts into human bodies, and I hope to see that it does.

>>13373425
This is coming from someone who is not a Marxist whatsoever: PLEASE stop talking about philosophers/writers you haven't read :3

>>13372609
>trying to convince americans about the righteousness of socialism.

You are courageous but it would be less difficult to teach algebra to oysters I think.

>>13372448
too busy working you fucking sperg

>>13372579
Except the workers can simply kill the owner if they don’t like their wages. But since the owner relies on governmental protection, he gets to live as a useless parasite.

>>13373245
Ancestors who did that usually acquired said wealth in despicable ways.

>>13372579
The first time the capitalist invest, maybe it's his money, if he earned it himself as a worker, and didn't inherit it.
The capitalist will invest (his) money into a new factory. The workers will produce. Then the capitalist will sell the goods. He will take for himself the surplus labor of the workers and make a profit. Then he will reinvest this profit into the company, which will grow. He will buy more machinery and hire more workers. The workers will produce. He will sell the goods, and take the surplus labor of this bigger amount of workers (profit), then reinvest the profit to increase production and the number of workers, take their surplus labor (profit) etc...

The first time the Capitalist invest money, it was his. However, each time he reinvest the surplus labor of the workers, it's literally the workers making him richer and richer.

>>13373516
Correct. The “surplus” is what needs to go.

>>13373454
And this is coming from someone who HAS read Marx.
Stop using that as a deflection to arguments and make your own counter-argument, faggot.
If I'm wrong then explain yourself.

>>13373524
Workers need to have percentage based profit share on top of a regular wage.

>>13372226
Do you really think the owner doesn't do anything? Do you really think securing funding, weighing risk and delegating responsibility isn't work? What are you like six years old?

>>13373425
>If he acknowledges the role of leadership then why is the denial of the leadership principle the main criticism against Marxism?
What? I don't understand the question. Are you asking me why some opponents of Marx attacking a strawman?

>It also seems to be a common theme with Marxists that they all believe managers are inherently evil people
Either they're not Marxists or the word doesn't mean much and should not be used, especially not when referring to something that's supposed to have something to do with Marx.

>I also dont understand how there can be an "after capitalism" that doesnt involve barter trade of some sort, which still involves private ownership.
For trade to occur you need at least two, separate, "private" owners. In socialism there will be just one "owner" -- society. Production and distribution will proceed from the center.

>>13373524
>>13373531
And once they share the surplus, where will the capital for reproduction come from?

Americans are essentially animals which are corralled by their government from one stupid issue to the next, all while their country stagnates with an objectively worse quality of life than most second world countries.

>>13372579
none of what you said is true, even from a non-Marxist perspective. Jesus this place has been truly infected by reddit and youtube reactionaries.

>the owner owns the capital which includes the land and production facilities
Capital isn't land and means of production per se, they are the private property necessary for capitalistic production which generates capital through its exploitation or use in exploiting workers.

>the workers are in contractual agreement that they are compensated for their work
they aren't compensated in any real sense. The purpose of compensation is to put somebody in the position they would have been but for a supervening event or circumstance that then requires compensation as a remedy or as the best possible means of amelioration. In the instance of waged labour this would be easily calculable. But it must be obvious to you that, by necessity, capitalistic production necessitates that workers aren't fairly compensated for their work, but instead are paid below the real value of their labour so that the surplus value generated by their labour can be retained by the owner of the means of production as profit.

>they don't control the production line,
It depends what you mean by control. Do they own it? No. Did they design it? Well, some waged labourer(s) along the way have had to design it, and then some others have had to build it, the fact that these workers won't be the same as those actually manning it is obvious but ignores the more general macro-economic point. Maintenance of the production line, and its entire function, is impossible without workers, while the owner does nothing but retain the legally enforceable right to extract profit. Also, just because workers do not own or control something, why does this mean that they cannot, or that it may not be better, if they did?

>If workers don't like it they can start their own business and run it according (to) their own desires.
It is painfully obvious that you're a neet . To start a business with a hope of success you need both enough money to get a successful start up off the ground and enough money that you aren't risking your life and the life of your family in doing so. Most workers cannot afford to either do this or to take the risk. Also, it would be impossible under most legal systems in the west for workers to actually form any real cooperative business model that moves away from the profit motive.

>Workers are expendable but entrepreneurs are not
How will the entrepreneur realise his goal without workers? If anything, workers are often are greater part of the success of entrepreneurs than first appears. The whole branding behind entrepreneurship that our generation has been spoonfed is fictional and serves a purely propagandistic 'if only you worked harder you could do it!' attitude. But it ignores the realities of actual corporate functioning and the actual lives of these figures themselves.

>>13373545
The workers all have to chip in. As well as the production means managers.

>>13373573
>Also, it would be impossible under most legal systems in the west for workers to actually form any real cooperative business model that moves away from the profit motive.
Totally possible and actual reality inEurope. Well, ignoring your false dichotomy of cooperative and for profit, or more plainly the assumption that profit sharing is basically an NGO welfare institution.

>>13373586
So there will still be surplus value, just a bit less of it, and the wages will be a bit higher.

>>13373573
Fuck off commie.

>>13373637
I'm sure you can do better than this. Give us better arguments please.

Mods should move this thread to /pol/

>>13373573
> Capital isn't land and means of production per se, they are the private property necessary for capitalistic production which generates capital through its exploitation or use in exploiting workers.
Capital is land, money or resources.

>they aren't compensated in any real sense. The purpose of compensation is to put somebody in the position they would have been but for a supervening event or circumstance that then requires compensation as a remedy or as the best possible means of amelioration. In the instance of waged labour this would be easily calculable. But it must be obvious to you that, by necessity, capitalistic production necessitates that workers aren't fairly compensated for their work, but instead are paid below the real value of their labour so that the surplus value generated by their labour can be retained by the owner of the means of production as profit.
Of course they're paid below value of labor, the cost of using someone else's resources.

>It depends what you mean by control. Do they own it? No. Did they design it? Well, some waged labourer(s) along the way have had to design it, and then some others have had to build it, the fact that these workers won't be the same as those actually manning it is obvious but ignores the more general macro-economic point. Maintenance of the production line, and its entire function, is impossible without workers, while the owner does nothing but retain the legally enforceable right to extract profit. Also, just because workers do not own or control something, why does this mean that they cannot, or that it may not be better, if they did?
The owner does aid in design quite a bit usually. Look at modern silicon valley, almost all created and designed the software initially.

>It is painfully obvious that you're a neet . To start a business with a hope of success you need both enough money to get a successful start up off the ground and enough money that you aren't risking your life and the life of your family in doing so. Most workers cannot afford to either do this or to take the risk. Also, it would be impossible under most legal systems in the west for workers to actually form any real cooperative business model that moves away from the profit motive.
says the retard who has no idea how business works.

>How will the entrepreneur realise his goal without workers? If anything, workers are often are greater part of the success of entrepreneurs than first appears. The whole branding behind entrepreneurship that our generation has been spoonfed is fictional and serves a purely propagandistic 'if only you worked harder you could do it!' attitude. But it ignores the realities of actual corporate functioning and the actual lives of these figures themselves.
He'll get more workers. Nine out of ten times the workers can be replaced by literally anyone.

>>13373545
>For trade to occur you need at least two, separate, "private" owners. In socialism there will be just one "owner" -- society. Production and distribution will proceed from the center.
And this is the big retarded hurdle I cannot overcome when talking to communists
What the fuck is "Society" if not a bunch of individuals cooperating together? How can you NOT have private ownership? I own the clothes on my own back and the food I need to survive dont I? How can you remove the inherent value people place on items and the desire to trade items for other items? Do people live together in one giant room? I dont follow this train of thought because it just leads to so many questions

Shouldn't the practical implementation of Marx's ideas be of significantly greater importance in a discussion like this?

>>13373700
Based Pinochet

>>13373698
They solve this issue by arbitrary defining certain objects as private property and others as personal property. Press them on it and they will just say you are being nitpicky

>>13373698
>I own the clothes on my own back and the food I need to survive dont I?
That's how it appears in society with private ownership, but in socialism it mostly becomes meaningless. Mostly, because in a limited way it stays true, especially in a lower phase of communism where there's still necessity of consumption quotas, so your means consumption are in some sense your rightful property.

>How can you remove the inherent value people place on items and the desire to trade items for other items?
Why would there be trade? If you want something and this something is produced then you choose it as a part of your consumption quota. I can foresee a situation where someone suddenly needs something today that they can only get this quickly from someone else's means of consumption, and maybe they will even acquire it through exchange with another person. But this would be an exceptional situation (especially since I imagine emergency products would have very quick distribution chains), whereas trade and the establishment of values needs large enough scale and regularity.

>I dont follow this train of thought because it just leads to so many questions
That's understandable. Human consciousness is largely shaped by the social organization they happen to live in. It's practically impossible to imagine a society that's so much different from what we're used to.

>>13373709
Marx didn't make such a distinction. If someone tells you he did then they're at worst just parroting someone they've heard (on Reddit perhaps!) and at best giving their honest misreading of a certain quote of his (which often happens with people who only read quotes).

>>13372609
>This system has produced so much abundance that we need to change to a different one

>>13372609
Thinking everyone's "base" should be covered isn't communism or socialism Hayek said the exact same thing

>>13373854
>That's how it appears in society with private ownership, but in socialism it mostly becomes meaningless. Mostly, because in a limited way it stays true, especially in a lower phase of communism where there's still necessity of consumption quotas, so your means consumption are in some sense your rightful property.
Ok so whats preventing me from using my property the way I want? What if I wanted to trade my loaf of bread for a sack of coffee?
>Why would there be trade? If you want something and this something is produced then you choose it as a part of your consumption quota.
What if I change my mind? What if someone offers me something that I didn't know I wanted but they want something of mine in return?
This is basic trading principles
>I can foresee a situation where someone suddenly needs something today that they can only get this quickly from someone else's means of consumption, and maybe they will even acquire it through exchange with another person. But this would be an exceptional situation (especially since I imagine emergency products would have very quick distribution chains)
Distributed by who?
>whereas trade and the establishment of values needs large enough scale and regularity.
I dont see why it wouldnt becomr a regular thing. Soldiers trade rations all the time. They place higher value on certain rations like Cigs or Chocolates and gamble for them or trade them. Despite the fact that everyone gets these as part of their issue this still happens.
>That's understandable. Human consciousness is largely shaped by the social organization they happen to live in. It's practically impossible to imagine a society that's so much different from what we're used to.
Oh please, this backhanded remark has nothing to do with it. My failure to understand is not from a lack of imagination anon, its because its inherently trying to change something about human nature.
>inb4 human nature doesnt exist

>>13373700
I was trying to get at that earlier but the kiddos want to jerk eachother off.

>>13372719
>rights rights rights rights rights

The world isn't what you think it is

>>13373928
>What if I wanted to trade my loaf of bread for a sack of coffee?

Nobody will want to trade your shit in the future. If you like trading as an activity, enjoy it now because one day, it'll become obsolete.
Trading is the link between primitive communism, and superior communism.

>>13374383
>Nobody will want to trade your shit in the future. If you like trading as an activity, enjoy it now because one day, it'll become obsolete.
This is what I mean
You people are legitimately delusional, living in a fantasy land where scarcity doesnt even exist
You really should try reading Sowell

>>13374437
Oh don't worry, i'll read Sowell and Friedman.

>>13374479
https://youtu.be/qjMpoQarbHo

200 years ago people were working 16 hour days 7 days a week.
then they got 12 hour days in 1848.
then they got 8 hour days in 1919.

luckily we've kept the status quo since then, lord knows the world would collapse if we went down to 4 hours

>>13374503
Blahblah blah Marx is responsible for State capitalism (Bolshevism, USSR). Fucking retard didn't even know that Marx was anti-statist (Critique of the Gotha program).

>>13374575
Its like you didnt even listen to the part where he said Marx wrote against such systems

>>13374590
Ok i finished the vid.
From the begining to the end: Marx is responsible for totalitarian regimes (Although he was clearly anti-statist, and for a classless society).

>>13373698
>How can you NOT have private ownership?

>>13374644
>marx causes totalitarianism but its ok because he said he doesnt like it

>>13374675
Richard Wagner is responsible for Nazism, and Friedrich Nietsche, directly responsible for the Gas chambers (or whatever...)

>>13374726
>wagner and nietzsche wrote mein kampf and myth of the 20th century

>>13372226
I'm a worker. We're too dumb to sell our products directly on the market.

>>13373513
t. self hating middle class white American teenager

>>13374530
Less work would actually be good for the world.

>>13372719
this, to achieve this we need national socialism, not communism nor capitalism.
life SHOULD be easier, when having a full time job. stop with the sacrifice is needed for everything

economics is pseudoscience

>>13373493
And since you have government protection the owner can't use his massive amount of power to make you a slave, dummy.

Do you think a gang of muscle is going to follow someone with the ability to create/manage power, or some poor naked shutter in the woods yelling at how they could easily just take that other guy out and they can share with you

>>13372448
that is far harder and more specialized than "business"/"management"

>>13373928
>Ok so whats preventing me from using my property the way I want? What if I wanted to trade my loaf of bread for a sack of coffee?
Nothing, but you won't do that most of the time. If you want a sack of coffee rather than a loaf of bread, then you will claim a sack of coffee from the social product, and if person X wants a loaf of bread then they will take a loaf of bread. If you and person X regularly take things you don't need instead of those you need just to instantly exchange them, then not only will you'll keep getting all your bread and coffee, but you'll also get free treatment for mental retardation.

>Distributed by who?
By an administrative organ of society that happens to deal with distribution of products in your area.

>I dont see why it wouldnt becomr a regular thing. Soldiers trade rations all the time.
Because their rations are identical/almost identical. The "according to need" means something different in the case of soldier rations than it means in communist society. In the army this is the need of the master to keep a human being in condition to fight for him. The soldier is just a uniform instrument, and with this so are his rations. In communist society the need is a need of free individual, who is an end in themselves.

>because its inherently trying to change something about human nature
>inb4 human nature doesnt exist
Schoolboy level false dichotomy.

>>13375087
>Given Popper’s falsificationism, there seems little hope of understanding how extreme simplifications can be legitimate or how current economic practice could be scientifically reputable. Economic theories and models are almost all unfalsifiable, and if they were, the widespread acceptance of Friedman’s methodological views would insure that they are not subjected to serious test. When models apparently fail tests, they are rarely repudiated. Economists conclude instead merely that they chose the wrong model for the task, or that there were disturbing causes. Economic models, which have not been well tested, are often taken to be well-established guides to policy, rather than merely conjectures.
TRUE

>>13372719
Absolutely based and dare I say it redpilled, lmao @ incel /pol/tards who've never done an honest days work in their lives asking you to justify that no one deserves to suffer when we have the resources and means to prevent it.