/lit/ - Literature

>Capitalism reduces the labour of the worker to a commercial commodity that can be traded in the competitive labour-market, rather than as a constructive socio-economic activity that is part of the collective common effort performed for personal survival and the betterment of society.

Fucking retard Marx. Look a contradiction. How are these mutually exclusive? WOAH :3

>>13517613
idiot

>>13517609
I don't get it, does he think people wouldn't sell their labor without big businesses? Excuse my stupidity.

>>13517683
no he thinks slave labour in gulag is a better alternative.

>>13517613
>can't wait the release of the iphone 16165165 for the betterment of our society

>>13517613
Genuinely one of the dumbest posters on lit

>>13517609
>a commercial commodity that can be traded in the competitive labour-market
>a constructive socio-economic activity that is part of the collective common effort performed for personal survival and the betterment of society

>>13517693
>thing popular so it bad
kys

>>13517693
Your understanding of the concept of economics is very very tiny

>>13517609
Has the rest of this series ever been translated, or did they not bother because the production quality is that awful?

>>13517693
Notice how people attack this individual. Rightly so: we see the basis of this person's (and their) criticism is based entirely on 'feelings' of 'class warfare' and most likely some other stupid Marxist terms that will be extinguished this century.

:3

>>13517842
Your understanding of the foundations of bourgeois civil society is non existent.

>Particularity (main characteristic of bourgeois civil society) is in the first instance characterised in general by its contrast with the universal principle of the will and thus is subjective need. This attains its objectivity i.e. its satisfaction, by means of [a] external things, which at this stage are likewise the property and product of the needs and wills of others, and [b] labour and effort, the middle term between the subjective and the objective. The aim here is the satisfaction of subjective particularity, but the universal asserts itself in the bearing which this satisfaction has on the needs of others and their free arbitrary wills. The show of rationality thus produced in this sphere of finitude is the Understanding, and this is the aspect which is of most importance in considering this sphere and which itself constitutes the reconciling element within it.

Read Hegel, if you can't then gtfo...

>>13517859
>>13517838
>they believe that the capitalist mode of production is in the service of the universal will

Wake me up

>>13517907
>they believe that the capitalist mode of production is in the service of the universal will
It is if you prefer shitting in a toilet rather than a hole next to your bed

>>13517956
I prefer shitting on your non argument. What the fuck are you even trying to say? Is the universal will of man to shit in a toilet?

>>13517981
It seems to be the will of most who have the choice between shitting in a hole and a toilet to shit in the toilet.

even as a /pol/fag every time i read marx i couldn't help but be struck by how much sense he makes

>>13517609
I'm hoping that anti-natalism and suicide takes off so that labor becomes scarce and power returns to the individual.

>>13517609
[trigger warning]

>Communism: Lower class parasitism, denies natural hierarchy by denying strong corporations, denies economic theory

>Capitalism: Upper class parasitism, denies natural hierarchy by denying a strong government, denies military theory

>National Socialism: Anti-parasitism, absolute hierarchy by allowing both strong corporations and a strong government, both economic theory and military theory optimized to fit eachother in the best way possible

>>13517998
Surely capital is only interested in satisfying our genuine needs...

You wish, anon.

>The means to particularised needs and all the ways of satisfying these are themselves divided and multiplied and so in turn become proximate ends and abstract needs. This multiplication goes on ad infinitum; taken as a whole, it is refinement, i.e. a discrimination between these multiplied needs, and judgment on the suitability of means to their ends. What the English call ‘comfort’ is something inexhaustible and illimitable. [Others can discover to you that what you take to be] comfort at any stage is discomfort, and these discoveries never come to an end. Hence the need for greater comfort does not exactly arise within you directly; it is suggested to you by those who hope to make a profit from its creation.

>>13518053
>Hence the need for greater comfort does not exactly arise within you directly; it is suggested to you by those who hope to make a profit from its creation.
I fail to see how this invalidates the transaction in itself. If I purchase a toilet, it is because I value the toilet more than I value my own money at that given time. Ultimately, it is the buyer who decides what is and isn't produced, because they are the final deciders on what gets sold and at what rate or price. I don't see how the conspiring affluent are to blame here. Only the consumer has the power to pull himself out of consumerist ideology via self actualization, and choose to stop buying iphones every other year. Even if they were being manipulated, that still doesn't change the fundamental reality that the consumer has the ultimate say in any transaction he takes part in.

>>13518053
>What the English call ‘comfort’ is something inexhaustible and illimitable
As a cultural point, this is extremely incorrect. There is a certain limit for certain to culture, and it is not this inexhaustible well.

For certain, we can observe as civilization advances, that the aristocracy have become less comfortable over time. :3

>>13518017
Beating around the bush. Genocide is the better solution.

>>13517683
The point is is that he takes an issue with "selling labor" at all. For Marx, the next phase of history is one where goods are produced for their usefulness to society and distributed accordingly. So it is not so much businesses that he has an issue with, rather, with the idea that one is required to sell their labor for a salary, which for Marx is am injustice, as according to him one must al was says be payed a wage less than the wealth their labor produces.

>>13518185
>For certain, we can observe as civilization advances, that the aristocracy have become less comfortable over time.
Not him, but how can we observe this? Don't speak in the abstract. If it is for certain, you can cite real evidence.

>>13518415
How the fuck weren’t the nobility more cultured and comfortable in Aristocratic/Feudal Times than now? Essentially, the Aristocracy/leisure class has actually GAINED entry-points over time,meaning their comfortability (as far as it consists of securing their position) decreases over time.

Especially considering how laboristic and Keynes-influenced the distribution of wealth in modern day America.

I drew on a couple sources. I suggest you read the following

Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy In America
Thorstein Veblen - The Theory of the Leisure Class

:3

>>13517609

>>13517609
You abandon capitalism, communism, and fascism to embrace accelerationism and our god Nick Land

>>13518441
Yes, but their overall lifespan has increased significantly. I can think of no better indicator of comfort more relevant than the average life span of a population, even one as small as the historic aristocracy. Your logic points at an aristocracy's comfort as equivalent to its barrier to entry. This doesn't make any sense to me unless you're just being obsessive with the hoarding, selfish nature of the concept so as to mislabel something so dumb fuck simple as general comfort.

Capitalism merely commodifies and formalizes relationships that exist in pre-capitalist economies. The depressing sense of obligation and necessity are omnipresent regardless. At least capitalism makes it far more efficient and fosters innovation better

Also, I saw that anime, it was actually pretty good for a Chinese production. Not super propaganda; they didn't make it seem like Marx's original idea was socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Evolving past villages was a mistake.

>>13518462
https://vocaroo.com/i/s1IlsCzjnW7J

:3

>>13518494
Come on now, the greek polis was definitely not a mistake

>>13518498
Nice. Keep up the good work.

>>13518039
>denies military theory
?

>>13518807
>"denies corporations" (what does that even mean?)
>denies economic theory (is literal economic theory)
>capitalism denies a strong governemt (since when?)

>>13517609

Good.

>>13517609
by being glad I can actually monetise the fruits of my labour, instead of wasting away in serfdom or gulags.

I took the NEETpill