/lit/ - Literature

>>13393440
>Is a violent revolution the answer only?
yes. eat the porky

Against. https://antinational.org/en/what-wrong-free-money/
>What would a satisfying political solution be for these people?
I don't know about Twitter "Marxists" or whatever, since a lot of them are social democrats, co-op capitalists, etc., but for actual Marxists the answer is absolutely clear. Marx:
>What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.

>>13393440
>What would a satisfying political solution be for these people?

Lemme spell it out for you fampai:

Capitalism = exploitation
Marxism = toppling power structures that codify and legitimize exploitation as the underlying framework for a society

UBI slightly improves the lot of the working class, but it does not change their relationship to the people who make them suffer in order to line their own pockets.

>>13393440
Marx was fetishising work, so probably would only support it as means to alleviate the pain of the working class

>>13393460
can't wait to destroy all of our nation's wealth and never recover :)

>>13393476
Unless you consider a moneyless society, that is what you will have in any other society aswell. The state redistributing money from the rich to the poor

>>13393488
>nations wealth
Why would this matter to 85% of the population who made it but don't get shit back?

>>13393518
Phones, computers, cars. Are you seriously claiming the wealth hasn’t increased for essentially everyone?

>>13393491
>The state redistributing money from the rich

It's not their wealth to begin with.

>>13393483
>Marx was fetishising work
How?
>The modern state, the rule of the bourgeoisie, is based on freedom of labour. The idea that along with freedom of religion, state, thought, etc., and hence “occasionally” “also” “perhaps” with freedom of labour, not I become free, but only one of my enslavers — this idea was borrowed by Saint Max himself, many times, though in a very distorted form, from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher. Freedom of labour is free competition of the workers among themselves. Saint Max is very unfortunate in political economy as in all other spheres. Labour is free in all civilised countries; ___it is not a matter of freeing labour but of abolishing it___. [Karl Marx, The German Ideology]

>>13393530
This happened basically anywhere. The average Burger wouldn't notice a life quality difference if they moved to some second world shithole.

>>13393535
"earths treasure" is the only part of this gives this any credence to someone with a brain. Might convince someone to nationalize nonrenewable resources, but how do you justify when you're creating value from nothing but the genius of the inventor/proprietor/exploiter?

>>13393591
genius is valueless without labour to realize it

>>13393440
>Would Marx be for or against UBI?
Marxs work started from the sphere of production, circulation was theoretically secondary. A question Marx would pose is: is it to be expected of capitalism to "naturally" develop a "UBI"? Production went from being carried out under the tutelage of mostly competitive private individuals to mostly oligopolistic corporations throughout the 19th/early 20th century. Consolidation happened because competition was cut throat on profit. It also made the high waged Fordist system possible. UBI is viewed as good for certain business interests but others as a burden (those dependent upon cheap labour or with little prospect of extra-profits from it). If the political will seriously exists to implement such a scheme it has to overpower other interests which I think are still more powerful still and they would have to self-understand.

>What would a satisfying political solution be for these people? Is a violent revolution the answer only?
Something that directly deals with the system instead of side stepping it. It doesn't need to be violent but it would start at the issue of production before distribution. Of course that's even less likely today.

>>13393606
Not the fault of the genius that the labourer fell for his scheme.

They probably see it as part of the "transition" phase

redistribution of money is inherently anti-Marxist

>>13393828
>thief takes $5 out of your pocket
not the fault thief that you didn't notice

>>13393849
What if the thief offered me 5$ for a sandwich and i accepted?

>>13393851
what's the market value of said sandwich?

>>13393851
Are you a BFP? Were you on notice of the sandwich being stolen?

>>13393851
It doesn't matter. For the marxist, the sentences
>you are exploited for your labour
>you are compensated for your labour
Are identical in their retarded minds

>>13393851
the analogy would be more you are starving and could buy a reallly nasty sandwich that looks like it will make you sick for 20 bucks, and you complain that you are dying and need a better sandwich and he tells you to go buy a shitty sick sandwich off one of the other hundred vendors but as you walk around you see they are all garbage and will make you sick and the price is fixed at 20 dollars. did anyone force you to buy a twenty dollar shit sandwich from Jamal? of course not, you could have rolled up in a ball and died you pussy

UBI is peak enslavement.

>>13393892
t.

>>13393476
>Capitalism=exploitation
>exploitation
In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the “competition” between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of “exploitation” for which you have damned the strong

>>13393939
throw all the money you wan't at the broom, it won't sweep itself

>>13393936
Mike Rowe is a top lad, bootlickers asshurt over work ethic is nothing new.

>>13393562
They will, going from 3rd world to 2nd world is huge.

UBI is a great way to devalue a currency to the point of making the UBI redundant.

>>13393946
I don't throw money at brooms I throw it at optimally scheduled sweeping crews.

>>13393948
He's retarded just like any other conservative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KddQKsrUXdM

>>13393975
I'm an objectivist, I know full well conservatives are retarded. However I can forgive Rowe his cuckservatism as that pic is the work ethic of capitalism and the philosophic operants of conservatism do not necessarily subsume it.
Conservatives merely give lip service to capitalism while being failures as defenders of it.

>Imagine not being an organic integeralist mutualist-georgist in current year

>>13393440
Why wouldn't it be capitalist? It's a plan invented and proposed by capitalists to improve people's ability to freely interact with the market. Some western Marxists like it though, because "I like your ideas but don't have the expendable money to drive to meetings" (or something along those lines) is a common refrain of lower income supporters. Other Western Marxists dislike it because it would work to supplant the wages of workers or undermine other government programs. And I don't know what Eastern Marxists are up to, but I doubt they care much.

>>13394007
>I'm an objectivist

>>13394007
>I'm an objectivist

>>13394007
>I'm an objectivist
you're retarded too.

>>13394007
>I'm an objectivist

>>13394027
>>13394031
>>13394032
>>13394043
Hi ReddJt. Making your rounds on /lit/ again I see

>"no, you shouldn't want to receive 1000$ for nothing, you should fight for common ownership of the means of production, so that you will work just as much as you do today but at least you will be able to nod your acquiescence to the proposals of the worker's council technical team in the name of workplace democracy

9 in 10 workers would choose UBI. Only bourgeois intellectuals whose entire rationale behind their support for communism is sheer resentment and bloodthirst would actually reject it in the name of violent revolution.

>>13393440
Against because Marx is for the emancipation of the proletariat, not making capitalism more bearable. UBI can only exist if there's wage labour while Marx wants wage labour to be abolished.

>>13394165
pathetic cope

>>13394199
>9 in 10 workers would choose UBI
That is not an argument for it anon.

>>13394275
This is part where I tell you to dilate and continue not having sex right? Nice talk fag.

>>13394299
you have me confused with someone else

>bunch of internet-raised faggots living a century deep into worst capitalism orgyporgy nightmare mode than marx ever possibly could have imagined wondering whether the dole is marxist or not
>both "marxists" and "antimarxists" are conducting the conversation on a plastic tamagatchi made by chinkoid slaves while walking driving a smog-spewing illegal taxi between their two gig economy jobs (one of which is driving an illegal taxi) in a world where 50% of global biodiversity has disappeared in a few decades so that all members of "developed nations" could be 60-70% freakishly obese

pretty sure marx would shoot himself immediately

>>13394199
And 9/10 people would choose to execute the 10th guy if it benefited them. The masses are essentially glueeaters anon, you shouldn't trust them as far as you can throw them

>>13394308
Pretty sure I'm not confusing you with a buzzword dropper.

>>13393440
>What would a satisfying political solution be for these people?

Millions dead, a culture wrecked.

>>13394165
Ayn Rand is the definition of r*ddit you massive faggot

>>13394199
>the working class has never operated against their own self interest
>what is alienation

>>13394342
>it's against their interests to receive $1000

Again, what would be on their interest? Nod along during a workplace assembly because some XIXth century theorist said that they should have control over the means of production, whether they wanted it or not?

>>13394342
By the way, the discovery of Gobekli Tepe refuted Marx's theory of alienation.

>>13394336
>top lass, banned from r/atheism r/philosophy and r/politics is leddit
Hahaha I fucking love how Rand alone is hard-immune from any accusations of redditry. You fags make me laugh, there is NOTHING more leddit than Rand shit flinging.

>>13394369
if every person was provided some form of housing, food, clean water, and clothing, it would do a lot more for people than giving them more money which will simply result in increased prices for housing, food, clean water, and clothing. UBI is symptomal healing, it's taking an advil rather than setting your broken leg.

>>13394381
Isnt it more of a garnish for people that have most these things already?

>>13394369
Not that anon but 1000 burger bucks basic income without anything else would only be in the interest of richfags. It sounds good first but it's basically nothing unless you live in bumfuckwhere.

>>13394376
why would you know what boards she's banned from? sounds like you spend a lot of time posting about Rand of reddit. she wrote shitty books (honestly the worst part), btfo'd herself trying to take on Kant, and demonstrated the absurdity of her philosophical position concretely when she ended up on fucking welfare. objectivism is reddit just like all libertarian philosophies; Rand is just the fedora tier conclusion.

>>13394394
I defintely dont live in the middle of nowhere and wouldnt mind it. But if youre living on it solely than yeah it aint shit

>>13394381
>>13394394
I don't actually disagree with this. My main criticism is of Marxists who would rather see worker's control of the means of production than improvements of standards of living of workers, whether or not they control the means of production.

I wouldn't support UBI if it meant the dismantlement of the welfare state, but that's the discussion I'm willing to engage. Not UBI vs violent revolution over a pipe dream of the XIXth century.

>>13394389
the point is 1000$ a month will not provide financial independence in the same way, say, making paying rent optional would. provide a material basis for human survival as a citizen dividend, would probably cost a lot less in the long run too. you are an idealist of the highest order if you don't think the market will adapt to this, which means in a few years you find yourself needing 3k a month to scrape by rather than the 2k you needed previously. this is why it's symptomal healing, the system will adjust itself to things like "more money", we call that inflation.

>>13393476
That's a loaded definition of capitalism, red.

>>13394428
Well, these people are very paranoid about any leftovers of capitalism and fear that UBI will only be used to make the oppression more palpable even if the welfare state remains. Which isn't 100% wrong per se. Though I do agree that the focus on muh revolution is irrational as fuck.

A couple of points. Marx despised the lumpenproletariat, and according to perhaps the only truly marxist theoretical greoup remaining, Theorie Communiste, work is necessary to keep the proletarian spirit alive. What proletarian revolution is possible within the lumpenproletarian reformation of NEETdom?

>>13394516
If people actually have a break from wagecuck life, they could get more informed and use some of the newfound free time on politics. Maybe some will even read Marx. NEETlife is unbearable for somewhat normal people; even richfags tend to do SOMETHING with their time despite not NEEDING to do more than eat and shit to keep their grandkid's grandkids rich.

>>13394405
I know from being curious if Rand is banned from european countries yet, "Rand Banned" pulls up reddit. Also reddit in general is an anti-capitalist shithole, which I know from occasionally topical forays of the place once this place and other objectivist forums I frequent call my attention to it. I didn't have to browse reddit to find out leddit banned Project Veritas recently.
And Rand got Kant completely, revolutionaryily right. Her collection of social security making her a hypocrite is a tremendous non sequitur. Do you know why?

UBI doesn't work.

I am not a marxism scholar but p sure anything other than proletarian ownership of the means of production is not marxist

>>13393530
Wow I have access to a car that I can travel to work in and a phone that I can check my work emails on while at home and a computer to play video games on to distract me from the fact I'll never be able to afford a house and family because of selfish boomers and kikes. Thanks capitalism!

>>13394745
>no please, send my tax moneys to Isael instead. I don't want them.

>>13394822
You're a miserable faggot and I'm happy you're going to die poor and alone

>>13394822
That's actually not a valid critique of capitalism; it's an indictment of your bad life decisions and the fact that you're too empty-handed to better your position.
Grow up, loser.

>>13394822
I’m 22 and can afford credit for my own house. Unironically stop being a bitch and work harder

>>13394851
>>13394880
>>13394937
Proved my point. Even if I were of mediocre abilities, 50 years ago I still could have supported a family and have bought a house on an average salary, even though I'm currently earning twice the average I can't. But you're right, it's my fault for not "working hard enough".
TRIPLE KO CAPITALIST BOOTLICKERS. Y'all make it so easy.

>>13394983
I get that your life is sad and pathetic but you really should look inward to find the source of your problems.
Crying about being born poor and stupid won't make you feel better.

>>13394880
The problem is, this applies to majority of Burgers. And the disparity increased exponentially. People work for longer too, so the "hard work" part is clearly not it and you'd have to do some serious mental gymnastic to present people getting exponentially dumber in a few decades as the explanation

Or maybe there is a massive fucking flaw with the system. You don't even have to be a fucking commie to notice is.

>>13394668
>And Rand got Kant completely, revolutionaryily right
you are as good at philosophy as you are at spelling

>>13393440
UBI can be a cheap way to control the political/economical power

>>13395220
How would it be different from any other political promise a la "I'm going to bring boomer manufacturing jobs back"

No he wouldn't. After he moved to england he thought of all welfare and regulatory schemes as bourgeois humbug.

>>13395205
Working longer hours does not mean they're being more productive. Getting paid by the hour is plenty incentive to drag your feet. Anyone who's dealt with large bureaucracy knows this intimately.

It's also indicative of the pareto principle; 80% of the work is done by 20% of employees.

>>13395240
>Working longer hours does not mean they're being more productive.
Well, boomer memes like "work harder" don't imply productivity. Besides productivity is/was on the rise either way. Just fewer and fewer people actually benefit from it more and more.

>>13395298
>fewer and fewer people actually benefit from it more and more.
Tell that to the millions of people lifted out of abject poverty every year

>>13395321
One doesn't exactly conflict with the other. Leaving abject poverty is great and all but afterwards they will be stuck in relative poverty without changes to the system. It's not like the idea is even controversial. Even most hardcore capitalist agree that the ballooning inequality is harmful for business and social order.

>>13393518
>Why would this matter to 85% of the population who made it but don't get shit back?
Because that 85% are retards, women and niggers

>>13395342
Relative poverty is a spook
The poorest people in the US would be considered middle class in Mexico
Just 100 years ago the rich would be considered poor today

I

>>13395384
>The poorest people in the US would be considered middle class in Mexico
Which is almost irrelevant for their wellbeing since they aren't in Mexico but in a country with enough wealth build each of them a golden statue.

People who aren't blind or quadruple amputees have easy life relative to cripples and lepers too; guess the French aristocracy forgot to mention that to the masses. "Things were/could've been worse" is a great sales pitch.

>>13395417
Wealth is mobile. You cannot freeze it and mass distribute it like that. Soccies are retards.

>>13395519
Extremely so today. Good luck redistributing the blockchain retards

>>13395233
By actually changing societal structure
Devil is in the details tho

>>13393892
The problem with this reasoning is really quite simple. If you were being compensated for your labor at the value at which your labor is worth, there would be no profit for your boss or the company for which you work. You do $6 worth of work, you recieve $6.

By definition, any system that allows for profit is exploitative. The only ways for you to MAKE profit is to pay the worker less than the value they created by their work, or to charge more to the customer than the value of work used to produce the product. The very idea of profit is inherently exploitative.

>>13395519
>Wealth is mobile.
Even assuming it's the case (As if richfags would move to Africa or Russia if the first world introduced sane tax laws) means to generate it, keep it and many assets aren't.

>>13395582
Implying it's worth shit before you turn it into a real currency.

>>13395606
Most of labour is a dying meme either way. What about art? Who do you exploit by writing a novel?

>>13395676
>What about art?
You work for yourself as a novelist, unless you work for a publisher, in which case your labor as an artist is being exploited by your publisher, who is taking a cut of the value of your work in order to publish it. Also...

>Most of labor is a dying meme
Okay, so you posit that all Marxists are retarded because the use of their labor is being likened to exploitation. Then somebody explains how the use of their labor actually IS exploitation, which is LITERALLY DEFINED AS
>the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work
Which of course fits your boss taking 5/6ths of the value of your labor for himself, as in the example, and your answer is that labor is a dying meme? I guess we'd better figure out a good alternative then, or sooner or later "Labor" is going to figure out that while they may be obsolete, they also outnumber everyone who is useful by about a dozen orders of magnitude, and can simply burn their houses down and guillotine them, as we do every hundred years or so like fucking clockwork.

>>13394822
MOM I CANT BELIEVE YOU GOT ME AN XBOX I SAID I WANTED A GAMING COMPUTER FUCK YOU MOM

>>13393440
Guys, does Marxist literature really feature the concept of "violent revolution", or is it merely the unfortunate fantasy of certain zealous followers of the ideology? Marx was not in favor of it, was he?

Also, do any of you know what I should do if I desire an economic system which is about equality for everyone, but also kindness and compassion? Because as much as I want to be friends with today's Marxists, I really can't if I know that they're even "okay" with violence against others, let alone in favor.

Is there no such system as Buddhism + Marxism, or similar? Spirituality, economics, and politics rolled into one?

>>13395733
Of course the literature doesn't advocate for violence against the government. Why would you ever write down things that the government can use to throw you in a gulag, put it in a book so that everyone can refer to you in posterity, and then put your name on it so they know exactly who to send to the gulag? Most of the literature deals with the abstract IDEA of Marxism, not really so much how to implement it, because describing how to implement it would get you put in prison in any decent nation for treason, at best.

In practice, there's PLENTY of advocacy in the original movement for violent revolution. Not only was the revolution under Lenin incredibly violent, but Lenin expressly advocated for the violent destruction of the previous order, and its enforcement through military force.

>>13395606
>You do $6 worth of work
There is no such thing as $6 "worth" of work. Any commodity only has value to a buyer, and "worth" is not a property of commodities but an agreement between people conducting a transaction, labour is no different.
Claiming that things have a set or inherent value in order to buttress your anticapitalism is brainless.
>The only ways for you to MAKE profit is to pay the worker less than the value they created by their work, or to charge more to the customer than the value of work used to produce the product.
I buy wood, i build chair, i sell chair for more than i bought wood. Did i make profit? That determines on my perceived value of my own labour. I sell the chair at a relatively low price to a store owner that i know will have an easier time selling the chair at a higher price from his store than i will from my workshop. Am i being exploited? If the lumberjack buys my chair, who is being exploited? All three of us? What is quantifiably different about this scenario and selling your labour directly?
Regards, someone who actually sells his labour to a company, that then sells it on as a commodity like anything else.

>>13395702
>who is taking a cut of the value of your work in order to publish it.
How is it exploitation given they offer me services for the cut?

>your boss taking 5/6ths of the value of your labor for himself
Depending on the work/contract you're getting a share closer to the value of your labour, a part is necessary to pay for the building/etc and another to pay for the bosses salary to manage all the shit so you can focus on your labor. And then the profit you make can be reinvested and ideally shared with the workers a la stock gains. It just doesn't seem that shit HAS to be exploitative even under capitalism.

Oh and just for the record, I'm not on the anti-Marxist side on this one, just not completely sold on it either.

>>13395774
Yes, but what makes it okay for the owner of the business to unilaterally determine the value of your labor? Just because he owns the machine, that makes him more important to the job than the man who actually does the work? Should they not have an equal voice, or at least compromise on how much your labor is worth?

Of course they don't, because your boss demands that he gets to set the value of your work in the marketplace for you. If labor were allowed to set the value of their own work relative to what capital owners want to pay them, there would be no profit. Every worker would demand the full sale price of the objects that they created which were sold. Why wouldn't you? Why create an object that the market determines is worth, say, $6, and then accept $1 from your boss for its creation, other than the vague idea that you have no choice, and have to be homeless otherwise?

>>13395733
>does Marxist literature really feature the concept of "violent revolution"?
Yes.
>[S]o long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible [gewaltsame] means, hence governmental means. [Marx, Conspectus of Bakunin's 'Statism and Anarchy']
>Also, do any of you know what I should do if I desire an economic system which is about equality for everyone, but also kindness and compassion?
demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. [Engels, On Authority]

>>13395733
>does Marxist literature really feature the concept of "violent revolution"?
Yes.
>[S]o long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible [gewaltsame] means, hence governmental means. [Marx, Conspectus of Bakunin's 'Statism and Anarchy']
>But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. [Engels, On Authority]

>>13395777
I suppose these are actually fair points. It doesn't HAVE to be exploitative at all, it just usually is. My boss charges $100/hr for my labor, of which I receive $15/hr. An 85/15 split is hardly fair by ANY metric, especially given that I already had my training prior to taking on the job, so he's really not providing anything other than a place to perform the work.

Its true that not every relationship between capital owners and laborers has to be that way, but given that $15/hr is the highest minimum wage in the country, and the vast majority of Americans by percentage make minimum wage in the area in which they live, that's still a pretty hard pill to swallow. When are we going to see this non-exploitative capitalism? It seems to be like most people are giving up the vast majority of the surplus value of their labor to their boss simply because they want to remain employed, which is the very definition of exploitatation, which is again
>the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work

It makes no mention of whether or not "Unfair" is right or not in society, only that any unfair distribution is exploitation by definition. So anything less than 50/50, with perhaps a SMALL extra cut for ownership of the machines that is absolutely NOT equal to an extra 35% cut like my boss takes, would be unfair, and therefore exploitation.

>>13395802
>Yes, but what makes it okay for the owner of the business to unilaterally determine the value of your labor?
He doesnt, he has my permission to do so, and if i have a problem with the buyer he must arrange a different one. My current buyer pays $30 an hour plus extra to my employer, in return my employer finds a new buyer with his access to the market his business allows him if i want to work elsewhere, and the buyer doesn't need a payroll department or anything like that.

>the market determines its worth, say, $6
There you go again. My labour has zero value without a buyer, and its value to any buyer is a relationship between what they need done, how urgent their labour situation is, and my opinion of the job.
The sale of labour does not need to be exploitative anon, real life isn't clear cut like theory.

>average white person only has an average IQ of 100
>for the entire planet its way less than that
All arguments for Socialism are gone at this point

>>13395851
>My labor has zero value without a buyer
Fair enough. What isn't fair enough is that once you have a buyer, your boss takes more than 50%, or literally, a fair cut, of the sale price for himself. Also, see >>13395843

>>13395861
>>13395843
Oh shit. Some people are underpayed sometimes. We better put a central committee with unlimited authority to decide literally everything

>>13395843
Well, in practice it is very exploitative, no arguing with that but seems at least this aspect of capitalism is easy to fix. To go back on topic ... some sort of basic income that provides a decent life. Once that's assured, work would be actually voluntary and not a "work or die" situation we have now.

If it's voluntary, the worker and the boss are on a much more equal footing, and the boss would require to provide initiatives to work for them beyond paying pittances.

>>13395861
>your boss takes more than 50%, or literally, a fair cut
My employer makes less money off selling my labour than i do, but since i couldn't sell my labour to companies that don't want to employ me directly without him the arrangment is beneficial to me. Hardly exploitative.
Labour markets can be are often are exploitative but that is not a default property of the sale of labour. Workers can and do have fair arrangements with employers all over tha place.

>>13396029
In principle, I agree with the UBI and everything you just said. By eliminating the tenuous relationship between work and basic human needs, we remove a lot of the exploitative nature of it all. Working for the basic things you need to survive is something you are compelled by that need to do, while working for the things you WANT beyond that is a voluntary choice. You won't see very many workers voluntarily choose to starve, so telling people "Well don't work there if you don't like it then" only goes so far.

Unfortunately, I don't think the UBI gets at the bottom line issue, which is that its very profitable to subvert peoples' rights and exploit them, and there's very little to keep people with more money or clout from ruthlessly doing so. If you just give people more money, and you don't institute any measures to restrict corporate interests from interfering in government, or government interests from selling out to corporations, and if we do nothing to keep either or both from trampling on peoples' rights, giving people a UBI isn't going to fix much - they'll just hike up all the prices and charge people more for rents because they can, and the wheels will keep on turning.

He tried to warn us.

>>13395837
What is wrong with the people in this world,,,

>>13393909
sounds like there's a shortage of sandwich ingredients - too many mouths to feed, if even the shittiest sandwich still costs $20 to make, since competition isnt driving that price any lower.

And i guess you can't find any work that will pay you $20 because too many people have saturated the labour market. Best you could do is steal, or die. Why should people with more give it up to feed you, prolonging this unsustainable scenario where there are mouths to feed but nothing useful to do?

Why should they be dragged down to support hundreds, thousands of idlers? Find a job bum

>>13394394
>>13394369
surely your revolution would be easier if your workers had 1k/mo to their name. At the minimum they'd have more time and resources to devote to the revolution, no?

Is the fear that they'll be mollified and lose motivation for greater change?
Who is working against the worker's interests now - the champagne socialist that wants them to give up their comforts and maybe their lives for the "cause", or the "foolish workers"

>>13394432
The market, in most sectors, isn't a cartel that sets prices to as high as the consumer can pay.

Unless it is no longer profitable to sell a $5 footlong, why would subway raise their prices to 50, now that UBI exists? When any other fast food shop could easily undercut them and take their business

>>13395668
No they'd move to Ireland. Anywhere else in the 1st world would be happy to let in the capital you kick out of the US

Most of the "means to generate it" have been moved to asia and mexico, places with cheaper labour, ages ago

>>13395802
The boss is absorbing the risk that your work turns out to be useless. Or "socially unnecessary" in Marx's LTV

He bought the means of production (risk) and is paying you guaranteed money for outputs that no one might want (risk)

Even in larger corporations, you and your coworkers have variable outputs, so if you mope around while he does all the work, you'll be getting paid vastly more than your labour was ever worth, because it's guaranteed and not tied to uncertain outcomes like the capitalist's profit is

>>13393545
Not that guy but from what I've read of common Marxist thought today there does seem to be a kind of fetishising of labor going on. Even to the point where it comes off as not all that different from the right wing fetishising of labor of the capitalist bourgeois. The distinction between each being which group benefits the most. As far as Marx himself he seems to have some contradictory thoughts like the idea of abolishing labor yet developed the Labor Theory of Value which is full of problems and arguably a kind of fetishising of labor.

>>13393440
They want anyone more successful than them to be torn apart but they're not going to do it themselves, they want everyone less successful than themselves to do it for them. This is why they don't care about people losing their jobs.

That being said I don't think UBI can work in the US. You're far from being a homogeneous country and you have birthright citizenship. You think immigration is bad now? Imagine it after everyone can collect $1000/month for life just from being born in the states.

You already have agencies in large countries supporting birth tourism where they have pregnant women fly in to give birth in the US so the child is a US citizen.

>>13393440
Late to thread, but hope it’s been said.
A non-accumulative currency and democracy in the workplace.

UBI is a Trojan horse for nixing demsoc/progressive reforms.

>>13394825
That would still happen with a UBI

>>13396507
'Democracy in the workplace' doesn't mean the abolition of hierarchies. There simply is no evidence of this. And it fucking doesn't matter if you give people labor vouchers, you can accumulate value in commodities as well. Your system doesn't have an reason to work.

I wish the reddit commie tourist trannies would leave.

>>13396533
Why don't you stop being a pussy and tell them why they're wrong. Dumb faggot

>>13396532
>'Democracy in the workplace' doesn't mean the abolition of hierarchies
Anarchism doesn’t either
>you can accumulate X
And it rots, or it’s just weird hoarding. Read the book, maskman

>>13396533
Newfag. I am one of the oldest regulars to this page. Deal with it, faggot.

>>13396544
Nope. Many commodities are non perishable. Gold, for instance.
>lets get rid of the bosses!
>not abolishing sociak stratification (hierarchy)
Learn English

>>13396533
>L-leave you gommies this is my safe space dont make me question my beliefs noooo NOOOOO

>>13396537
>>13396544
>>13396552
Is this meant to prove your not reddit commie tourist trannies? Because it’s doing the opposite.

>>13396544
nothing "weird" about hoarding gold if someone else will buy it from you later.

>>13396552
Yeah where have you said a single thing that could make enough sense for someone to question their beliefs

>>13396551
Learn anarchist theory, (gold) and read the book

>>13396568
Its a soft metal. You can’t eat it.

>>13393476
So in effect communism will always be self destructive to society.
Power structures will always exist in human society simply because some people are smarter, stronger, or overall more fit to survive in an environment than others and will thus accumulate an advantage.

Umm, sweetie, I know you might want UBI to tangibly assist with your finances but I'm afraid that will only disincentivise you from contributing to the revolution! So we can't be having any of that. Toodles~

>>13396645
>conform to my use of language!
fuck you.
>you can't eat it
you can't eat labor vouchers either.

>>13396692
This post turned me gay.
10/10. Would read again.

>>13396692
>Um sweetie, I know your wages have been stagnated and diving for decades, your healthcare costs have doubled, you and your kids are now saddled with educational debt, and you'll never be able to buy a home, but fixing those things might take actual work and taking on large special interest groups head on! So here have an extra couple thou' every year. Toodles~

>>13396692
>we should totally trust the congress to set the UBI. They’d never change it. They’ll probably up the amount to match inflation. We can trust them. We’ll vote them out if they don’t do as We The People say, riiiight?

>>13396824
>bashes democracy
>wants democracy to be applied to the workplace

>>13396840
>liberal
>still thinks we live in a democracy
Oh dear. Tsk tsk

>>13396853
Voting for representatives isn't democratic? What do words mean to you?

>>13396858
Doesn’t Aristotle describe democracy in Politics?
I’m talking about direct democracy here.

Here’s a video (there’s a second part fyi)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeP9LdbJj8M

>>13396874
Direct democracy is impossible to implement on large scales.

>>13396880
And I’m an anarchist and you still haven’t read the book.

>>13396914
lmao I'm not reading your shitting book. why don't you instead try to communicate some of those great ideas you've learned?

the bugs are flapping their wings at eachother

>>13396922
We do not need nation-states. Direct democracy works best in the workplace and the town, city and district counselorships. If you can’t be assed to read book or watch some goddamn videos maybe you shouldn’t be engaging in discussions on this topic.
I want you to learn though

>>13396970
So we have lots of small polities competing for resources and influence and this is supposed to be some sort of innovation?

>>13396979
>competing
No. This is why it’s key that we shove capitalism aside. Not competing. That’s a bad motivator, always has been.

>>13393440
>Enough money to live off
>Measly

0$ is measly.

>>13393440
>Socialized necessities
>Fundamentally conservative
>Snake oil
Charity

>>13396993
It's a biological fact that organisms compete for resources. Even in a magical post-scarcity economy, you won't be able to undo basic evolutionary psychology

>>13393440

It's a meaningless question since Marx is illogical, none of his ideas are congruent with each other, nor even congruent with themselves. It's a daisy chain of quips he barely holds together by cursing "CONFUSED" and "COUNTERREVOLUTION" every other page.

I think nothing would help the impoverished more than a continual dividend.

>>13396810
>the solution is more light rail service and spiffed up indian reservations by the way. free doctors and college are dudebro-coded and nonfeasible. toodleoo~

$1000 + $10 minimum wage 40h per week = $2600

$16.25 minimum wage 40h per week = $2600

>>13396533
>maybe if i call something "reddit" enough it'll become wrong

>>13393440
>Would Marx be for or against UBI?
UBI is part of the Capitalist system, how could Marx be for that?

>>13397282
This is a reddit argument.

>>13393440
I don't have a personnal opinion about UBI. However, according to radical Marxist, it won't abolish wage labor. It will only make wage labor more flexible since it will be possible for the capitalists to use the workers for a particular task, then dump them (flexibility) when they are not needed anymore. It will be possible since they have a safety net (the UBI). What's more, UBI will inflate the prices, and will be funded by the working class (taxes), not the Capital.

>What would a satisfying political solution be for these people?

There is no political solution. Political economy is alienation.
Abolition of money, the State, exchange value, delegation of power. This is anti-political.

>Is a violent revolution the answer only?
Nope, i hope we can go there slowly, however, the Capital is not of this opinion. See what happened recently in western europa with the yellow jackets. The yellow jacked were not "activists" or shit like that. They were the people. Nonetheless, the State put 23 eyes out with flash-ball, disables 3-4 hands, and killed one. In the end, it will be the Capital that is not reasonable, and don't want a peaceful transition. Not the working class.

>>13393591
>the genius of the inventor/proprietor/exploiter?

Capitalism is not about "inventing" something. It's about benefiting from the work of others.

>>13397000
Shaddup

>>13397053
Damn. And that’s what they’ll do

>>13395774
>There is no such thing as $6 "worth" of work. Any commodity only has value to a buyer, and "worth" is not a property of commodities but an agreement between people conducting a transaction, labour is no different.

Workforce is the only commodity that can create value.
Name an other commodity that can create value on it's own, without any human workforce?

>>13397000
>It's a biological fact that organisms compete for resources.

Humans don't compete for resources inside the tribe. This has been documented. The hunt is not the property of the hunter who killed the animal, but is shared among everybody.

>>13395752
I'm fairly sure a first world government can't throw you in jail for writing a book.

>>13398208
But America literally did it with that tax guy? Can't remember the case.

>>13393591
Athens did it with its silver.

>>13395342
>I'm poor because I don't have three houses and four cars
You have an oven, a big tv, a microwave etc. Work harder and stop being a leech.

>>13394309
based and rainbow pilled.

>>13398159
And the tribe is just that, a small tribe that grows and falls naturally. It's nothing you can force, i.e you can't create a global hive like you retard socialists believe

>>13394822
>It's all capitalism's fault!
Shut the fuck up you actual fucking brainlet. Stop crying, make a manifesto and get to starting the revolution if you're so against the current system. If anything it'll give your single fucking braincell some purpose since you can't seem to grasp the concept of looking beyond the material for it. Miserable cunt. God you piss me off.

>>13398294
And a decentralized society and economy would follow organically when you democratize the workplace and abandon accumulative currency. People would flock to it, naturally.

>>13398294
>It's nothing you can force, i.e you can't create a global hive like you retard socialists believe

I'm not a socialist. And i don't believe that you can "create" a global hive with politics and willingness.
Capitalism is creating this global hive, in case you didn't noticed. It is absorbing and digesting all identities. In don't even want this, but this is happening.

>>13395606
the problem with this reasoning is that two people working in tandem is not twice as much productivity, it's more. Cooperation is more than additive, so there's a margin of value in the final that is above and beyond the value of the worker's labor
otherwise every bootstrappin boomer capitalist would try to work for themselves to get rich, and many would succeed. Obviously this doesn't work because a factory of 1000 people doesn't make cars 1000 faster than a single person working on his own. The lone worker will never build even a single car.
It's fascinating to me how fundamentally selfish marxism is/has become. For all the ink spilled decrying capitalist greed, these labor theorists sure are champing at the bit to squeeze every red cent they can out of the system, with nothing going to their fellow man. "The fruits of my labor" is a useless concept when your labor becomes part of a generalized pool of labor from many people of many specialties, creating something greater than any of you. Dividing up the results of that congregational pool of labor according to value added by each individual member is like trying to divide up a cistern of distilled rain water according to how much each guy pissed into the tank.

>>13396450
Horkheimer said something about treating labor as transcendant was an ascetic ideology

I'm a Marxist leninist, yes ubi is trash only capitalist liberals are in favor of it.

>>13398919
What you say is entirely true. Production increase when humans are working into groups.

So why should the Capitalist benefit from this group energy, and not the workers themselves, even as a group?

>>13400207
Marx is great.
Lenin was a piece of shit. He killed the Krondstadt workers. Useless statist.

>>13400231
Lenin wasn't any more statist than Marx.

>>13400262
LOL
Read Marx incel.

>>13393440
Against.
Marx and Marxism see the problems of capitalism as stemming from antagonism within its most basic structure. That basic structure is the private ownership of the means of production by a small percent of society, who then employ free labour for the goal of private accumulation. For the orthodox Marxist only changes to that deep structure would result in fundamental change to society.

UBI does not do anything to change that basic ownership relation.

That’s not to say it’s necessarily ‘bad’ in the Marxist view, but it cannot be a longer term solution to the contradictions of capitalism.

>>13393440
>Would Marx be for or against UBI?
That's a political question. You failed to mention anything literature related even once. >>>/pol/ or go fuck off to /leftypol/ or twitter. Also stop dickriding Marx, it's cringy. Instead of consantly asking "What would daddy Marx think?" ask what YOU yourself think, unless you admit you're a brainlet with no critical thinking skills. Saged and reported.

>>13400356
I did.
>BAKUNIN: The question arises, if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule? It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state.
>MARX: It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means.

>>13400396
Yes, transitional phase, but it's not supposed to last 70 years like the fucking USSR.
You'll say that Lenin died, but he was just doing his new political economy, which is, well, political economy.
Marx hated political economy.

In any case, the proletariat dictatorship is supposed to be done by... the proletariat, not fucking Lenin, who killed the Kronstadt workers. Fucking Trostky also who killed a lot of people.

Get lost bolshevik.

>>13398288
These Tumblr communist, hashtag activists are living in the most luxurious times in all of history. The only problem is that they live empty lives and are either unemployed or are working some menial office/other entry level job and were raised with a sense of entitlement. It would be funny to see how these anxiety-riddled children who are too scared to even leave their house would react to an actual communist revolution, but I can imagine it clearly enough. In case you guys actually lack foresight and this isn't some gag that I don't understand, there won't be any internet, iphones or starbucks during the communist revolution, and there won't be any abundance if a communist regime actually takes over. You would most likely starve to death or be murdered, considering you live in a city and your food is outsourced.

>>13393440
Revolutionaries (including Marx): Against, because it supresses revolutionary potential.
Reformists: For, because it's closer to their ideal society

>>13400415
>Yes, transitional phase, but it's not supposed to last 70 years like the fucking USSR.
Does Marx say that anywhere, or is that your own invention? If it's the latter then that's fine, but let's keep the conversation on topic. The topic: "Lenin was(n't) more statist than Marx."

>but he was just doing his new political economy
What does that mean?

>not fucking Lenin
Lenin wasn't a superman. He didn't "do the proletarian dictatorship" by himself.

>who killed the Kronstadt workers. Fucking Trostky also who killed a lot of people.
So what? Engels:
>Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.
You think it's possible to have a revolution where no counter-revolutionaries also happen to be workers?

>>13393440
>OMG UBI!!
>OMG MARX!!!

>>13400510
Man you sound like a low IQ pussy desperately trying to come off as intelligent. Go back to r3ddit with your old failed and irrelevant jewish ideology.

>>13400356
Marx was a dumbass. Only rich Jews still support his ideology to oppress the goy swine like you

>>13400510
Bolshevism was a total failure. And Kautsky, who was the last to work with Engels, was in conflict with Lenin because Lenin was trying to make a revolution in an archaic country (Russia).

The revolution can only happen when Capitalism in approaching it's end. Even now, it's too early.

>>13400207
but the workers do benefit, anon. A man working in a car assembly line gets a living wage. A man building cars alone gets nothing and starves to death. Clearly the return value of his labor massively increased once he entered the (capitalist headed) collective group
can you please quantify exactly what would be a fair division between the worker who provides physical labor and the owner who provides administrative labor, investment capital and covers financial risk? you seem to take it for granted that the division will be unfair but I don't think that's the case, and it seems completely possible to work out an fair (or at least humane) partition in a capitalist society

>>13400569
>The revolution can only happen when Capitalism in approaching it's end. Even now, it's too early.
Marx:
>The program is not to be relinquished, but merely postponed—for some unspecified period. They accept it–not for themselves in their own lifetime but posthumously, as an heirloom for their children and for their children’s children. Meanwhile they devote their "whole strength and energies" to all sorts of trifles, tinkering away at the capitalist social order so that at least something should appear to be done without at the same time alarming the bourgeoisie.
Perfectly describes people like you (except for the children part, you virgin incel).

>>13400576
>the owner who provides administrative labor, investment capital and covers financial risk?

In fact, the owner only provides investment the first time. Each time the capital reproduce itself, it's the workers who finance the company growth (new workers and new machines).

>you seem to take it for granted that the division will be unfair but I don't think that's the case, and it seems completely possible to work out an fair (or at least humane) partition in a capitalist society

This is socialism. I don't like it. There is still exchange value, division of labor, class society, alienation, etc... If you want this, go to Denmark, it's pretty close to socialism.

>>13400708
>The program is not to be relinquished, but merely postponed—for some unspecified period. They accept it–not for themselves in their own lifetime but posthumously, as an heirloom for their children and for their children’s children. Meanwhile they devote their "whole strength and energies" to all sorts of trifles, tinkering away at the capitalist social order so that at least something should appear to be done without at the same time alarming the bourgeoisie.

That's Bernstein, not Marx.
No more Bolshevism. Everybody dislike you. Both radical Marxist and alt right. What are you, a jew?
It's either 80% of the population in favor of Marx ideas, or nothing. Capitalism is even better than Bolshevism. Way better. By the way, you describe yourself as Marxist Leninist, but we both know that Marx would have hated you. For sure, Hitler is better. At least he didn't kill his people to gain power.

>>13393440
UBI, especially at levels as low as a thousand dollars a month, is basically a capital circulation scheme. It's designed to make sure consumers still have money to consume with to stop the entire productive process from collapsing. When you consider that that same productive process has resulted in the very wage stagnation, unemployment and capital accumulation that leads to that decrease in spending to begin with, UBI entering mainstream politics becomes an indicator of just how hilariously absurd the internal contradictions of modern capitalism are becoming.

>>13400856
Same poster, continuing for clarity, it's basically an ad hoc, duct-tape style attempt to offset a problem caused by a far deeper and far more insidious structural issue with the system.

>>13400843
>That's Bernstein, not Marx.
The author is Marx.

>By the way, you describe yourself as Marxist Leninist
Where?

>>13400856
>>13400868

wha you dont understand is that capitalism's great strength is in these "ad hoc suct tape style" sttempts. They dont fix the issue but thats not the point. Nothing lasts forever and capitalism constantly re invents itself through these attempts and in doing so perpetuates itself and doesnt fundamentally change too drastically.

It isnt dumb, its capitalism's greatest strength and why the possibility of a capitalism or at least capitalist "traits" lasting essentially forever is a very real possibility. In fact much more likely than the opposite, which is an "end" to capitalism whatever that means (capitalism is "end". it is finality and death. how do you kill death? you dont thats the "problem")

>>13400569
engels himself came around to thinking that an authentic communist society could happen in russia precisely because it was agrarian and because of russia's historically self organized agrarian communities. these same communities are the ones lenin wanted to base his revolution upon. but he quickly gave it up.

>The revolution can only happen when Capitalism in approaching it's end

capitalism will never end

>>13398309
>decentralized society and economy would follow organically when you democratize the workplace and abandon accumulative currency.
Evidence?
>>13398159
Only within band level kin groups. Larger segmentary tribes do compete within the larger group.

>>13398159
And human tribes compete with each other, and have quite fiercely.

>>13393440
UBI is a fundamentally bad idea. How about we put that money towards schools or proper medical facilities for those that need it? All this talk of paying off college debts has made me cynical. Why don't we fund state run higher education so we don't have to rely on loan sharks to have a functioning workforce? Why can't we improve the school system so higher education isn't needed? I'm so tired of butthurt millennials who fell for the college scam wanting an out instead of a proper solution to the problem.
Fuck.
Sorry, off topic but no listens to me whenever I bring this up and it's frustrating.

>>13402227
The government has incentivized student loans. Don't be mad at people for following incentivizes, this is just basic psychology.

>yvm0QrHZZJQ
>thing been
>thing will ALWAYS be
>DO NOT TRY TO CHANGE THING
Your type have always held humanity back.

>>13402284
Capitalism has improved the world immeasurably, and also arose organically and within the confines of normal human behavior. You want people to do things that they won't. That will result in either a coercive state to force them to behave preferably, or failure.

>>13402300
>Capitalism has improved the world immeasurably
How?
>and also arose organically and within the confines of normal human behavior.
Did it? Elaborate please.

>>13402323
>How?
You have the freetime to shitpost on 4chan instead of tilling your fields, for one. You also aren't dying of preventable illnesses. You also aren't going hungry. You have the freedom to choose what you do, where you go, and who you associate with. Should I continue?
>Did it?
Yes. The necessary conditions for capitalism came from the institutional drift experienced by England (primarily) and the critical juncture of the black plague. The plague wiped out peasant populations, and suddenly labor was in very short supply. The independence of the gentry that the Magna Carta granted allowed the various lords to offer the peasantry better terms in order to steal them away from their current lord. The central authority was unable to stop this, unlike in Eastern Europe and France (to a degree). This culminated into greater property rights, less stratification, and more social mobility. After the Great Revolution in England, the necessary pluralism in parliament secured property rights and denied entrenchment of interests, which incentivized individuals to invest and innovate, without fear of their gains being confiscated.

>>13400856
yes its a charity scheme to keep you ungrateful unproductive unnecessariat alive and wealthy (more than the median wage worldwide for doing nothing but being an amerifat)

and yet you still want to tear it all down, impoverishing yourself just to bring the rich down with you.

>ad hoc, duct-tape style attempt to offset a problem caused by a far deeper and far more insidious structural issue with the system.
you would be right not to rely on it in the long run, the usd's days are numbered, even before it becomes funny money

What do they want? Why is 1k a month low? That's a lot of money for an average person to friviously spend per month.

>>13394309
based

>>13402377
>You have the freetime to shitpost on 4chan instead of tilling your fields, for one.
The people who till fields in our economy do not. Also, there was a class of people who had lots of free time in feudalism. Also, mean free time has decreased, not increased, since the advent of capitalism.
>You also aren't dying of preventable illnesses.
They might. Lots of people still do. Also, the reduction of death from illnesses coinciding with capitalism's arrival is contingent - markets are not responsible for quite a bit of the medicine we have.
>You also aren't going hungry.
Many people are. Big assumption on your part.
>You have the freedom to choose what you do, where you go, and who you associate with.
This is false unless we're working with a very silly and specific definition of "freedom". Prisons exist for a reason, as does the welfare state.
>Should I continue?
No.

>>13402578
There are basically no subsistence tillagers in advanced capitalist societies. Developing societies are rapidly shedding away this inefficient mode of production.
>markets are not responsible for quite a bit of the medicine we have.
'quite a bit' maybe, but the vast majority of medical innovation was made under capitalist incentives.
>Big assumption
That butterfly isn't starving? lmao
The rate of starvation has dramatically dropped in the past 200 years. In the united states, we no longer use the term 'starvation', we say 'food insecurity'. This change in the nomenclature reflects the change in material conditions.
>This is false
Because we have prisons and welfare? This doesn't logically follow.
>>Should I continue?
>No
There is no possible argument that could change your mind. One might as well try convince an imam to give up Islam.

>>13402578
>mean freetime has decreased
source?

>>13402609
holy cringe

>>13402300
>Capitalism has improved the world immeasurably
Lets pretend it has.
Now, however, it is taking us to the brink of extinction. Can we stop now? I think we must.

>>13402578
Serving coffees is not the same as toiling fields.

>mean free time has decreased
maybe UBI could help with that?
Also you are counting the people who could work less and still survive, but choose to work more to make more
money

>Lots of people still do
There are billions more people alive now than there was back then. You're not seriously arguing that more people had access to medical care back in feudal times compared to now are you

>markets are not responsible for quite a bit of the medicine we have.
They are responsible for the R&D of new drugs, and the following price drop that puts them in the hands of more people

>going hungry...Many people are.
Who is? Hundreds of millions were going hungry in China 50 years ago, before they gave up on a command economy and adopted the market

>Prisons exist for a reason
Yeah we should probably just kill em like they did in medieval times instead of housing and feeding them like we do now.

God you people are too much

>>13402639
You won't, but i sincerely wish you the best of luck in trying. It will bring some excitement if nothing else

>>13402639
>Can we stop it now?
If we create the right incentives for the market to act, and create the necessary political will between nations. However, China and India are unlikely to play ball, so climate change's solutions are probably limited to technological innovation.

>>13402630
>le cringe xd
Epic win for the marxists!

>>13402674
>Play ball
You're still thinking like a brute of the past. We have to replace the whole thing. Capitalism's grace is passing from the US to China the way it passed from the UK to the US, but China isn't the same kind of country, doesn't have the same goals. A completely changed America, a dissolved US for one, would ease a pressure off the world

>>13402609
>subsistence tillagers
You did not specify subsistence tillaging.
>in advanced capitalist societies.
>Developing societies
Capitalist and "developing" countries do not exist in a vacuum. Look up world-systems theory.
>but the vast majority of medical innovation was made under capitalist incentives.
This is outdated Freshwater hogwash. The state, particularly the military, is responsible for a huge amount of innovation.
>That butterfly isn't starving?
No?
>The rate of starvation has dramatically dropped in the past 200 years.
Regardless, you said "go hungry", and many people continue to go hungry - even in the US. Doean't matter what you call it when my girlfriend's family regularly has to choose between sacrificing a meal or getting a step closer to homelessness.
>Because we have prisons and welfare? This doesn't logically follow.
Prisons are there to prevent you from doing certain things, ergo we do not have complete negative freedom. The welfare state (or rather lack thereof) signifies a need for a certain amount of positive freedom that capitalism cannot provide. Do try to keep up.
>There is no possible argument that could change your mind. One might as well try convince an imam to give up Islam.
Go back to r/neoliberal.
>>13402622
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/29/why-a-medieval-peasant-got-more-vacation-time-than-you/
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/priceless-moments-how-capitalism-eats-our-time/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28q7l5/comment/cideuzj

I don't get this whole "muh exploitation". The boss providde you with a mission and often tools and a place where to work, the value the worker produce is partially owed to the boss. Therefore part of the benefit made by the worker is to be given to the boss.

Do Marx address that or does he thinks no bourgeois ever work?

>>13402712
The boss acquired the means of production through violence or other arbitrary means. There is no reason they should own it as opposed to society as a whole.

>>13402721
>violence or other arbitrary means
No, that's not true. Otherwise we'd see the aristocracy of the past being the capitalists of today.

>>13402733
More than that if acquiring the means of production happens through violence how do you explain self made and from poor countries uber rich like carlos slim who was literally a homeless orphan. Do communists not realize or just ignore the fact that they will have to violently oppress people to stop ownership?

>>13402708
>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/29/why-a-medieval-peasant-got-more-vacation-time-than-you/
doesn't link any sources.
>https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/priceless-moments-how-capitalism-eats-our-time/
unrelated
>https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28q7l5/comment/cideuzj
>"So a lot of down time had to be devoted to hand-making things: women spun wool/linen, wove it into cloth, and sewed clothes; men carved rake heads and tines, or flails, or made rope and nets, and carved kitchen bowls, etc."
not exactly free time is it?

All of your 'sources' have sited 80-150 holidays a year. However, not including holidays, Americans enjoy 104 days off a year, due to weekends. Also more than 50% of Americans have unused vacation days, and the average amount of vacations they have is around 17, which bring the total to 121. So if we calculate (150+80) / 2 = 115, we still see that even with your bullshit ad hoc sources, you are still wrong. Here is my source, btw.
https://www.ustravel.org/research/state-american-vacation-2018

>>13402708
>The state, particularly the military, is responsible for a huge amount of innovation.
"Huge" is entirely relative. Modern medicine is here thanks to capitalism, end of story.
>Negative freedom, positive freedom
I'm not a libertarian, I'm a liberal. I understand some things must be sacrificed in order live in society. I only seek the maximization of freedom within these parameters. Btw, welfare is a concept only practiced in liberal capitalist societies.

>>13393440
Marx was wrong so why should I give a shit when capitalism proved that faggot wrong?

>>13393975
Nah your just mad because you don’t have a work ethic.

>>13394381
Pay for all that yourself :^)

>>13393440
If you want to help people do not tax their income, and that means everyone.

>>13402721
So commie are just seething retard then.

>>13402721
This is quite false for any tech start-up. All they needed was a computer, which you can easily save up for

>>13402776
>'sources'
>bullshit ad hoc sources
The sources were fine.
>Not trusting Reuters.
>"unrelated"
>durr people don't have chores in the modern day
The rest of your post is an impressive amount of mental gymnastics (largely unsupported by your "source") considering you're trying to refute one tiny point in the post you're replying to, while ignoring the rest of it. Don't think I didn't notice that with the previous reply, as well. I'm done with you, this is enough sophistry for one night.

>>13402788
>Modern medicine is here thanks to capitalism, end of story.
holy ideology

>>13402852
>The sources were fine.
The reddit one was fine. The rest weren't, and you know it. The Reuters article was written by some random, not an expert in the field. So she needed sources to back up here claims. And she has a clear leftist bias, considering the other articles that she has written for Reuters.
>durr chores
Yes, i forgot i had to spend my free time sewing my own clothes and making my own tools. Retard.
>logical reasoning
>mental gymnastics
the commie reveals his power level.
>while ignoring the rest of it.
See
>>13402788
>I'm done
You were finished before you even began.

>>13402858
It is. Capitalism has it flaws, but has been a net positive. If anyone's the ideologue here, it's you.

>>13402873
>>logical reasoning
why do i have a hunch you don't know any formal logic

>>13402877
nice source bro

>>13402879
Okay.
>>13402885
Do normative statements need sources now?

I think Marx would be against it due to the fact that like all welfare state policies it serves to mollify the proletariat and retard the workers revolution

Keep in mind that the earliest functional version of a welfare state was conceived by Bismark in order to undermine communist elements

https://www.britannica.com/science/history-of-medicine/Medicine-in-the-20th-century
Marxists are retarded.

>>13402912
read your own sources. the reasons it gives are all technological. if you actually read marx you would know he had technologically deterministic views; i.e., capitalism was caused by technology, not the other way around. just because something happened in the 20th century doesn't make it a result of capitalism. nothing in the article refutes the claim that the state had a primary role in innovation

here, do some reading for a change:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx%27s_Theory_of_History:_A_Defence
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State

>>13402945
to be clear, i'm telling you to read the books, not the wikipedia articles

>>13402945
Where did that technological innovation come from in the first place? Individuals and organizations operating in a free market environment. Just because the government was acting in the free market doesn't mean that the innovation was driven by the state. The state was merely a client of certain producers, with limited exceptions. As a marxist, you should know that socialism isn't when the state does stuff. It is still operating in a capitalist framework.

>>13393440
>Would Marx be for or against UBI?
transcend

>>13402712
>The boss providde you with a mission and often tools and a place where to work, the value the worker produce is partially owed to the boss. Therefore part of the benefit made by the worker is to be given to the boss.
Yes, the part of the value he paid for is owed to him, that is the the value equivalent to the value he paid in wages. What's your point?

>or does he thinks no bourgeois ever work?
His closest friend was a capitalist, so take a guess.

WWMD the thread. Wew. I wonder how much this type of figurehead dogmatism actually governs people's thinking.

>>13403143
A lot, unfortunately. People seek easy answers to complex problems.

>>13395668
>Implying it's worth shit
Its worth over 10,000 dollars retard. In Venezuela they can't control it for shit and its fucking their retarded commie policies

>>13393975
Nah, actually you're retarded. Mike Rowe realizes that simulations of human emotion with increased use of irony is corrupting the authentic emotional attachment of our youth to the real. In this manner our benevolent tech overlords increase their hold over the unwashed masses, constantly exploiting the deterritorialization of language and the reacquisition of it's symbological importance and thus preserving strong, religiously charged language with thousands of years of Western excellence behind it for the cultural elite.

>>13403230
you're too retarded for my thread. leave!

>>13401830
Idk man, the thought that reality would allow an entire system of social organization to be held together by duct tape for all of time is pretty unpalatable to me.

>>13402505
It's closer to human farming than to charity. The only reason power would allow a wealth redistribution scheme to enter popular discourse is that it serves power's interests. Reduction of human beings to cattle to be processed is nothing to be grateful for, keep licking those boots.

Also I'm neither American nor a prole.

>>13403375
Power in the west is not so centralized as you claim it to be.

>>13403421
Not centralized in the hands of individuals but centralized as a concept. The people who supposedly wield power aren't so significant as power itself as an abstract actor with its own interests. In the context of UBI and wealth redistribution I suppose you could call it capital, but I think that would be a bit reductionist.

>>13403429
>power itself as an abstract actor with its own interests
What?

>>13403456
Powerful people and powerful institutions, on average, have coinciding interests. So power in the abstract has its own interests and over time develops systems whereby these interests are promoted, usually without the direct knowledge of the individuals possessing power.

This is basically just the idea of a ruling class in the Marxian sense. It's not powerful individuals who matter so much as power as a class, in the same way that it's not individual capitalists or workers who matter so much as capital or labour as a class.

>>13403473
Can you give me a concrete example of this power dynamic?

>>13403491
Watergate is a good example. There had been many similar attacks against smaller, powerless groups before that. But when the group under attack represented about half of the political power and a large chunk of the capital power of the United States, ostensibly the most powerful man in the country was brought down.

ITT people that don’t understand that sufficiently advanced, technocratic capitalism IS Marxism.

Against :3

So would the Austrian socialists, or any reasonably intelligent person who has studied economics

>>13403588
Capitalism is a mode of production based on wage-labour and large-scale industry, Marxism is the doctrine or the theoretical expression of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat.

>>13393440
they hate UBI on an emotional level because it's not punitive enough (on the rich, but especially on the middle class majority). Really is that simple.

>>13403724
>punitive
No no.
It maintains capitalism. THAT is the simplest terms

>>13403724
>Really is that simple.
it's not. please see https://antinational.org/en/what-wrong-free-money/ and point out the supposed emotional level

>>13396316
>best you could do is steal or die
>find a job

>>13403763
why dont you move to cuba or join a commune butterfly? why do you continue to wageslave for the capitalists

>>13393964
based

>« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ »
Why hasn't this tripcancer been banished from here yet?

>>13393476
Are genetics part of " power structures that codify and legitimize exploitation as the underlying framework for a society"? What about history? Culture?

>>13403806
One needs money to survive in this world. The US especially wont let you rest till you’re about to die.

>>13403827
Same reason we put up with your cancer.
Seriously. Anonymous acts just like a cancer cell. Never noticed?

>>13403855
DO NOT FUCKING POST IN MY THREAD!!!

>>13403855
have you even tried to join a commune? how can you prescribe anarchy to everyone when you've never practiced what you preach

>>13393440
>Would Marx be for or against UBI
Marx isn't trying to tackle income but capital. If you gave people UBC (where you're given a capital asset which produces income) he'd be okay with it.
>What would a satisfying political solution be for these people?
Being filthy rich oligarchs. They don't want the revolution. They don't even want to give up technology which rapes the earth and several million people for rare elements because it's too entertaining to be mad on the internet. They aren't going to be happy tilling their own patch of soil. You couldn't pay them enough to get them to do the work they insist others do for them.

>>13403917
how is that not what this is? a capital asset (citizenship) that produces income (1000$ per mo).
It's not like they are working for that 1k. do they need to be able to sell that asset to someone else? is that whats missing here?

>>13403987
Citizenship is not a capital asset. You don't own it, it owns you. You might as well say slaves have a capital asset called masters which give them food income sometimes. Or low level workers have a capital asset called the company which pays them income.
>It's not like they are working for that 1k.
They're not working for a lot of other things they have too. A new fancy phone might be worth 1,000 to them, but if you offered them 1,000 to mine the minerals involved, mix the solvents and oils and plasticisers and solder the circuitry and insulate the wires and build the clean room and so on, and compensated them nothing for life or limb lost in any of these processes, I don't think they want the phone for 1,000 and bring your own labor. They want it for 1,000 where their nonlabor job pays the upper reaches of first world wages plus perks. The actual labor to extract value from capital they do not want: they don't even want the guys who mine the minerals to make ten bucks more than them per hour, even though that would drive up the price/down profit margins only miniscule amounts.
None of them campaign for a valuable job which ensures our survival to be paid more than a white collar one. If you eliminate all sanitation workers below the median wage tomorrow, we have a cholera and listeria and all kinds of pandemic apocalypse. Get rid of doctors tomorrow and the situation is not as bad, more of us survive til the end of the month.
They would fume though if you proposed UBI only going to labor jobs which keep us fed, not covered in literal shit, and don't encompass those with luxury goods to their name. Because they are not the workers of the world, nor prisoners of starvation: they have a contract with Verizon no Congolese nigger with chemical scars from mining for them is going to cancel before they get through their next Netflix binge or Twitter war.

>>13403917
>Marx isn't trying to tackle income but capital. If you gave people UBC (where you're given a capital asset which produces income) he'd be okay with it.
Are you retarded? He tackles capital, that is he says it will have to be abolished, not redistributed.

>>13404132
>There must be something about the abolishment of capital at the end of Capital
There isn't. There's the dictatorships of the proletariat and vague handwaving about the end of history.

>>13404145
who are you quoting?

>>13404112
You can voluntarily renounce your citizenship. Not true of your slave masters. Company pays you income conditioned on your work. Not true of citizenship, which is unconditional. So whatever point you're trying to make there, those were some terrible examples to pick to support it.

The rest of what you say is true, but change will only come in the wake of catastrophic collapse. The material economy will take precedence over the financial one, and labour will have bargaining power again (owing to its shortage after billions dead) Until then what can we do? Just learn survival skills and wait for the day?

>>13404145
Capital was never finished. Volumes 2 and 3 are unfinished, and Marx had planned up to 6.

>>13403911
I’m working on starting one.
Unbelievably ambitious, I know, I’m still working out the details of how to do this.

>>13404275
>You can voluntarily renounce your citizenship
If you have a second one. Not if you only have one. The world does not like stateless individuals, just like slavecatchers.
>Company pays you income conditioned on your work.
No. It's far more predicated on other socioeconomic factors. For instance, does a cleaner in Vietnam do a different job to one in the US for their wages to be so disparate?
>Not true of citizenship, which is unconditional.
There are thousands of conditions attached to citizenship. In a lot of countries they can declare you insane and extinguish any privilege attached to it from liberty of movement to bodily integrity. You can be drafted in a lot of countries if they decide, you can be refused travel documents and you can even be assigned Chinese social credit if you really lost the slavery lottery. You can be drawn for jury duty, you are subject to all laws of that country (sometimes even when not in it), and if you're lucky enough to be Aussie they can fine and imprison you for not voting.
>>13404275
>The rest of what you say is true, but change will only come in the wake of catastrophic collapse
Dubious. Marx claims this. I personally think we'll still be shitbags, and much like the millions dead in the Black Plague only expanded the middle classes as we split up the deceased shit among ourselves, I don't think a billion dead will stop any of the people surrounded by unclaimed assets from getting someone else to work on them for comparatively less than what they get out of the arrangement.
>>13404217
Whom and paraphrasing.
>>13404318
And if Marx ever comes back from the dead to correct how Engels edited that and the Outline, we can discuss those texts, but right now they don't fucking exist.

>>13404377
>And if Marx ever comes back from the dead to correct how Engels edited that and the Outline, we can discuss those texts, but right now they don't fucking exist.
The point of course being that there's nothing about the abolition of capital at the end of Capital because there's nothing at the end of Capital, because Capital doesn't have an end. The abolition of Capital is an obvious development of Marxist thought and almost certainly was planned to be included in Capital itself.

>>13404409
>Capital doesn't have an end
It does. Engels might have put it there from condensed notes, but it's more of an end than he gave Outline.

>>13404409
Btw while you're channeling Marx, what ending are you giving to outline? I'd also like next week's lotto numbers if he's with Mystic Meg.

>>13404428
You don't need me channeling anybody, you can just look at the wealth of later Marxist literature dealing with praxis and what's to be done. Even looking at Marx's work outside of Capital gives a pretty good indicator of the endpoint he saw his work as having.

>>13404461
>the endpoint he saw his work as having
You mean the handwaving about the end of history, where such an abolition or its opposite would not be recorded? Odd he is getting rid of that part, is he telling you it was an Engel's insert?

>>13404478
I mean the abolition of capital.

>>13404409
>>13404478
It's in the fourth section of first chapter of Capital, it's in the Critique of the Gotha Program, it's in "Value, Price and Profit", it's in several other places.

>>13404422
"end"

>>13396450
>As far as Marx himself he seems to have some contradictory thoughts like the idea of abolishing labor yet developed the Labor Theory of Value which is full of problems and arguably a kind of fetishising of labor.
how are these two things contradictory
>>13402712
the morality of exploitation is irrelevant

>>13393946
>throw all the money you wan't at the broom, it won't sweep itself
no, a robot will

>>13405113
I'm not talking morality I'm talking pure logic.
If Marx's logic is that the worker is entitled to everything he produce then o e have to realize that the worker is only able to work becquse of his employer and thus part of what the wprker produce is owned to the employer.

>>13405438
>If Marx's logic is that the worker is entitled to everything he produce then o e have to realize that the worker is only able to work becquse of his employer and thus part of what the wprker produce is owned to the employer.
again, you're speaking ethical terms. marx's employment of the theory of exploitation isn't "workers being exploited is unethical so capitalism should be replaced." rather, if marx is right that profit is derived from exploitation, there are a set of implications regarding the long-term sustainability of capitalism.

>>13405438
>If Marx's logic is that the worker is entitled to everything he produce
it isn't, Marx never speaks in such categories as "entitlement". this is the kind of category his bourgeois adversaries use, which he mocks them for

>>13405453
>f marx is right that profit is derived from exploitation, there are a set of implications regarding the long-term sustainability of capitalism.
I reject that statements on its face, profit is a form of value. It's an invention, it comes from a societal dynamic and does not arise at any single point of interaction

>>13405463
ok that's fine. my point is that his theory of exploitation isn't an ethical one.

>>13393476
Yeah bro, the world is black and white. Socialists are the good guys fight for freedom, qequality, and the common man, whereas capitalists are bordeline sociopathic narcissists that are responsible for every problem in the world today. There is no middle ground, and no way you could be wrong about anything as long as you stick to heterodox Marxism.

You want to know how I know you don't know shit about economics or political philosophy?

>>13394432
t. Doesn't know undergrad level game theory and ddoesn't realize that its mathematically provable that both pure capitalism and pure communism lead to pareto inferior outcomes

>>13405463
>>13405473
There is no surplus labor in the primitive tribe.
Surplus labor exist since the neolitic revolution.

Surplus labor is pretty easy to understand.
Let's check feudalism. Imagine a free peasant. He works his farm, and live only on his production (he doesn't sell his products).
All he do is necessary labor. Labor that allows him to renew his living conditions.
Now let's imagine some Lord arrive and say: now this land is mine, or i'll kill you. Work this land for me, and i'll let you also work a piece of land for you.
Now the peasant has to work not only for him, but also for the Lord (in exchange for "protection", which could be real or not).
The labor in excess of what is needed to renew his living conditions is called surplus labor. It also exist in slavery mode of production, and Capitalism. In Capitalism, surplus labor is profit. The salary of the worker is what allows him to renew his living condition, and the profit, what he produce in excess, and goes in the pocket of the capitalist.