/lit/ - Literature

"yo gimme dat shit for free"

>>15062779
i hate you people so fucking much, honestly wasn't ruining the 20th century enough? can't you give it a rest? this gibberish, this utter twaddle, has tormented the discourse for so long already.

>>15062779
>Brb, trading something for use-value at the shop real quick
Lmao, it's still fucking wrong

Explaining how a market economy functions is pretty simple. Explain how your alternative economy functions?

>>15062801
Fuck off lib.

My interpretation of a properly Marxist society is basically one-giant-union, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Its goal is to institute a worldwide commune that, through singleminded, careful planning, and science devises a network of people that everyone equally contributes to, to satisfy their collective material needs (housing, food, water, medicine, mobility), with the progressive plan of reducing the amount of necessary social labour time via improvement to the means of production, eventually ending in a society that requires no social labour time.

>>15062816

>dude Marx was like really redpilled bro!

>>15062806
Marxism abolishes the value form. There is no trading. There is no private property. In a properly Marxist society, after the revolution, everyone is collectively working towards the maintenance and improvement of the means of production (they have jobs basically), but, because the society is working towards a common good, and therefore, upholding its values and being a decent person is actually in your own self-interest. Despite the fact that there is no trading, and, therefore, everything is "free" it's not the same kind of free as in a capitalist society.

When capitalists imagine a society without private property and trading with currency, they imagine that what everyone will do will simply take more than they need. They'll just steal everything, and horde it to themselves. Then, no one will have anything else.

But people only do this when its better to be a criminal than participate in society. Who are the people that robs stores in our societies? They're poor people. The people that want to build empires don't commit petty thievery from stores. They build empires by the books, they're businessmen. Organized crime is an anachronism, real governments are massive drug peddlers, usurers, pimps, and warlords.

In a Marxist, having private property is against the law. This law would prevent stealing, rather than allow it.

>>15062845
Jesus dude you don't even know the difference between private and personal property

>>15062837
he was though. He wasn't afraid to call a jew a fucking jew nigger

>>15062853
Yes I do. Private property is bourgeois property. It is property which is used to for the increase of money, as in the form of a commodity, or as productive capital. Personal is not productive capital or, it is for-itself.

>>15062863

Hey, OP, thanks for reminding me again why I fucking hate Marxists.

>>15062871
okay, give me a definition then

>>15062779
Ontologically speaking, Marx is still a liberal. That is, he places man as the condition for authority and society, rather than its product. We observe this in his doctrine of base-superstructure: although he places the two components of society in a reciprocal relationship (perhaps anticipating the following problem), he upholds the primacy of material relations. What he fails to realise is that these relations must first be represented by an authority before they can be (and are) enacted. We can observe this structural necessity in markets. Contrary to libertarian belief, no such economic relation, free from mediation by authority, has ever existed or ever will exist. Ultimately, this failure is an inheritance of the liberal philosophical and economic (namely Smithian) traditions; traditions that, once again, place man as the condition for society and authority (see Smith's mythological land of barter for an archetypal example).

>>15062779
>>15062845
Everything you think is important matters less than you could possibly comprehend.

>>15062903
What's the alternative? Man is a product of authority? Where does authority originate?

>>15062907
Holy crap, that was a badass one liner.. I'm totall stunned! Who are the people that are important that I should read to understand the way really works?

>>15062903
What's your definition of 'liberal'?

>>15062914
Uh.. the bible bro!!! Wait.. what do you mean people are required to interpret it? No no, man isn't the condition for authority, rather than it's product. Pay no attention to the fact that people run it.

>>15062917
Are you being sarcastic? Very interesting conversational tactic, bro. Don't think I've ever seen it done before.

>>15062903
The Chad OP Marxian vs the virgin pseud commenter

There is no base-superstructure doctrine in Marx

>>15062935
>dodges the question
come on, you gotta tell me bro. who are the people that are important? You don't even have to tell me why. If you know who is unimportant, you know who is important. Im dying to be privy to your wisdom!

>>15062779
Would anyone be interested in listening to, and critiquing (constructively), a podcast on Marxism.
https://soundcloud.com/marxist-cloud/communist-manifesto-part-one

>>15062944
Most things do not require an informed opinion. I'm simply witness to the fact that you're not going to live long being this angry over irrelevant ideological dogma, not that much quality of life would actually be sustained for someone that saves pictures of cartoon little girls onto their computer. Read whatever you want to, just don't expect anyone else's appreciation or care.

>>15062953
So now you're a longevity specialist? Will wonders never cease.

>>15062953
>Most things do not require an informed opinion
absolutely based and 100% true

>>15062845
Why would anybody resort to crime in a stateless society? There is no crime, and nobody to enforce proper behaviour. He doesn't even need to steal, he can simply accumulate resources until he has a surplus, and people will bargain with him for that surplus. Need never satisfies want. Just as in Eden, even paradise will not be enough to quench man's desire for more, and he will persist down this bottomless pit of desire to his own peril. I like thst pic of her.

>>15062962
OK now you have convinced me. I am officially a Marxist communist.
Why is this of any consequence whatsoever?

>>15062966
Don't sell yourself short, anon.

>>15062971
I'm not interested in platitudinous grandstanding over whatever deluded self-importance you've anointed yourself. Don't reply to my posts ever again.

>>15062914
Authority is the product of power, and power is the product of violence.

>>15062976
Surely you can imagine a nonviolent society, anon.

>>15062953
the /lit/ equivalent of being told to just chill and hit this blunt dude

>>15062779
>I-It'll work this time guyz I promise!!

>>15062953
>Most things do not require an informed opinion.
Just imagine how much energy the average person wastes thinking that this isn't true.

>>15062845
>>15062863
>marxist
>posts anime faces and retard frogs
Hmm, makes me wonder how quarantine have influenced the cost of your estrogen pills

>>15062974
No one asked you about your interest level in grandstanding, brainlet. And I'll reply as needed.

>>15062982
I can, but I can't imagine an authority which could justify itself through rational means, if not through power. Might is ultimatley what decides where power lies.

>>15063028
You're not >>15062903 are you? How the fuck do people carry out discussions here without IDs.

>>15063015
Trannies in Italy were boiling plastic grocery in order to distill their xenoestrogenic essence. Sllluuurp.

>>15063026
All you're proving is your insistence on wasting more time. Your replies are not "needed" by anyone, least of all you. I'm sure that won't stop you from pathetically groveling for the last word so if you've read this far and still intend on replying you may as well make a few more pointless decisions and fuck your whole life up. It'd be a lot more compelling than where you're headed.

>>15063033
No, that isn't me.

Introductory books on marxism? help bro

>>15063090
Marx-Engels Reader

>>15063040
You're cruising for a bruising, anon.

>>15062801
This "gibberish" is completely opposed to the vast majority of the supposed "communist" movements of the 20th century, so you're really quite a retard if you're connecting the two.

>>15062809
Society as a whole draws up a common plan of production and distribution and then enacts it.

>>15062816
>My interpretation of a properly Marxist society is basically one-giant-union
You mean a labour union, or a unity? A trade union is limited to a single trade or industry etc. so there can't be a single one, and there can't be multiple ones because a communist society lacks division of labour.
>the dictatorship of the proletariat
A communist society lacks classes, so it can't be a dictatorship of one class.
>plan of reducing the amount of necessary social labour time
Necessary social labour time is value. It doesn't exist in a communist society, because products are not produced there as commodities, to be exchanged.

>>15062914
>Where does authority originate?
That's like asking where the feeling of awe or aesthetic resonance originates. It is a question that bottoms-out metaphysics. All we can know is that that authority is there.
>>15062922
>man as the condition for authority and society, rather than its product

>>15062943
>There is no base-superstructure doctrine in Marx
Not formally (or at least only minimally so), but the entire edifice depends on it.
>In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely [the] relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead, sooner or later, to the transformation of the whole, immense, superstructure. In studying such transformations, it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic, or philosophic—in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production.

>>15062779
>Most importantly, Marxism leaves no room for markets. Market socialism retains all the problems of capitalism while giving way to liberal egalitarian arguments about equality in the workplace. With markets we have commodities, and with commodities we still have commodity fetishism, capital accumulation, and alienation.
Market socialism doesn't mean markets with workers' ownership, you midwit. It means using tools of theoretical pure market economics to improve centralized planning of production.
>Only through the undervaluation or overvaluation of products is it forcibly brought home to the individual commodity producers what society requires or does not require and in what amounts. But it is precisely this sole regulator that the utopia advocated by Rodbertus among others wishes to abolish. And if we then ask what guarantee we have that necessary quantity and not more of each product will be produced, that we shall not go hungry in regard to corn and meat while we are choked in beet sugar and drowned in potato spirit, that we shall not lack trousers to cover our nakedness while trouser buttons flood us by the million – Rodbertus triumphantly shows us his splendid calculation, according to which the correct certificate has been handed out for every superfluous pound of sugar, for every unsold barrel of spirit, for every unusable trouser button, a calculation which “works out” exactly, and according to which “all claims will be satisfied and the liquidation correctly brought about.” And anyone who does not believe this can apply to governmental chief revenue office accountant X in Pomerania who has checked the calculation and found it correct, and who, as one who has never yet been caught lacking with the accounts, is thoroughly trustworthy.
Engels, Preface to the German edition of
"Poverty of Philosophy"

>>15063246
You are deeply confused.

>>15062858
So? It's still onions to try to rehabilitate Marx's image.

>>15063317
I'm really not. If anything it's you who are confused, not knowing who/what I'm drawing from.

>>15062871
He's right, actually

>>15062903
Praise God. I posed a similar question to a man educated in physics from Cambridge, who had recently become an atheist, about where he got his sense of authority from, or, by reference to what exactly does he refer and therefore is capable of verifying the truths that give him meaning?

I am loving this dialogue thought I hope OP responds.

Marx never completely abandoned his early moralism; he just learned to hide hide it better.

>>15062779
Thanks based Marx reader. The thing is, and you know it, most anons won't get your point. But it's worth a try, again and again, until they get it, even if it takes 20 years. When the crises hit hard, and they will, they will be more open to the idea of Capitalism abolition.
Sadly, i think that when the next 2030 crisis strike, the Capitalist class will impose State Capitalism (aka socialism), because liberal Capitalism doesn't work anymore, due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. So they will impose some socialist new world order State Capitalism. 1984 and Brave new world like. With this, economical sector which are not profitable anymore will be paid through the State (taxes). After some time, their reformed State Capitalism will collapse as well, because it's still based on exchange value, profit, wage labor, money, thus still subjected to the same fundamental Capitalistic laws, and notably the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, The Capital won't be able to renew itself, the cycle will break, once and for all. Only then, when everything collapse, will we see superior communism. So yeah, still 40 years ahead of political economy and retarded Capital reformism.

>>15063188
>Society as a whole draws up a common plan of production and distribution and then enacts it.
how?

Marx literally has nothing to do with Marxism past the 1800s

>>15062779
>>15063935
The dreams of violence from ungrateful children in the house of their father will he met with, if not severe punishment, a rude awakening. Mark my words.

>>15064288
very cringe how hard you are trying

>>15064288
>me? i'm not violent, i just want to use violence on everyone who doesn't agree with me, so just don't disagree
cringe tard

>>15064308
funny it feels that way

>>15064318
ready?

>>15062863
Your body is your private property you fucking retard

>>15064406
Not for leather daddy

...

>>15063033
uma delicia

>>15062779

>>15062858
>dude he called a guy a jew nigger!

>>15062816
1)You are advocating for a society of control with similar mechanisms to the ones employed by the elites in our liberal representative democracies. The imperative that rules your society would act as a center, and those closer to the center would wield more power relatively to those on the periphery. The primary center of power (or Power) would almost completely extinguish the power of subsidiary power centers. We are talking of complete centralization of power shrouded by its supposed distribution. This center can and will be eventually ocupied by intelectual and artistic elites. These elites will wield Power and will be de facto sovereingt. They will control space in the social sense through a sign-regime of their own making. This is, by definition, satanic.

2) Value does not require mediated production or private property of capital goods, only exchange value does.Value requires only representation.

3)A commodity is not by necessity a product of capitalistic production. Even in communist societies there would be non-differentiated goods and their existence enables the existence of markets. A market requires only the belief in the absence of significative difference between the transacted objects.

4) The distribution of the right to use capital goods does not translate in equal acess to these goods. This is also true in regards to power.

5)The fundamental fact of production, that scarce means cannot be applied to multiple mutually exclusive ends cannot be changed for it is a property of reality.

6) The absence of exchange value and commodities would make a general representative of value unnecessary. Without a general representative of value it is impossible to maintain higher degrees of mediated production. Without a high degree of mediated production some goods deemed of utmost importance to the existence of modern societies cannot be produced, as they depend on the efficiency of a gigantic chain of production.

7) The absence of markets doesn't change the fact that mediated production is inherently alienatory. This alienation requires a service industry.

>>15063949
This question can only be answered from without his dream. Those plans would be devised by those that control the center of shared attention. These elites would form a de facto managerial class. The media (or peoples media/voice, free press and other euphemisms), would act as the enforces of an academic and artistic class. The concensus of the masses would be fabricated by these people. We are talking of a particular sign-regime being enforced top-to-bottom to create an imperative that would guide policy through direct democracy.

>>15062779
>Marxism does not view the exploitation of the worker as a bad thing, but merely a contradiction in the system of capitalism that necessitates its downfall. Marxism is not about giving the workers the 'fruits of their labor', that is a Ricardian socialist slogan. People who think this are Ricardians calling themselves Marxists. Marxism is about the abolition of the value-form and through that the commodity-form. Things will be produced for use-value rather than exchange-value because the distinctions of class society will be dialectically overcome, its contradictions ridden of, allowing society to be a coherent, non-alienated whole where there is no longer a dichotomy between individual and community.

Whether or not Marx says this or not is beside the point, we'll take your word for it. So already there is a system or structure being made and a choice being chosen, one over the other. The one being overcome, not chosen, and pushed aside- the value-form/commodity-form and what's being chosen is the use-value rather than the exchange value. Furthermore, the idea that, through the dialectics, class distinctions in society will be overcome and society will be a coherent non alienated whole where there's no longer a dichotomy between individual and community. The very system in which this body of thought resides in is itself incoherent the moment the one is chosen over the other because the one is given meaning by the other, here specifically, the individual over the community. Even if something like were to be manifested, it would produce a new subject with a new antonymy/antinomy and the very force of choice, of choosing one over the other, would be there. A new problem would arise, and a new structure would take its place. Whether or not Marx see's this as good, that at least we will get over what we are in now, or he doesn't see this and believes that its going to be somehow this 'end of history' as Fukuyama believes, and this utopian vision (despite further on you say its not a utopian vision), is regardless of the subtle point to be found that there is a dream of violence already being enacted and what I foresee within this body body of thought is a call to action towards violence. And i think that it explains in the early 20th century when the World went to war with itself and communism was a theme of one side of a total bloodshed.

>>15063949
How what? Which part don't you get?

Based marxposter

>>15064889
>it would produce a new subject with a new antonymy/antinomy and the very force of choice
Human/machine?

Is there really a deep relation between Hegelianism and Marxism as some scholars say? I've been reading Capital these days and so long I just found a reference to the Science of Logic. But there's nothing else that seems to be so inspired by the dialectical method or whatever.

>>15062779
>Marxism does not view the exploitation of the worker as a bad thing
Lol yes it does retard. The problem for marxoids is that good and bad don’t actually exist in their retarded materialist worldview so they have to equivocate (=COPE) hard with all kinds of Talmudic word games about muh historical processes. At the end of the day all marxoids are moralists driven by resentment

>>15062837
You are a gay slave

>>15064889
>Marxism rejects egalitarianism because egalitarianism is a liberal value, necessitated by the shortcomings of the capitalist system. Within capitalism it serves the function of being an opium of the masses, claiming people are equal in only one respect that liberalism deems important (being citizens of the liberal community; of the social contract). Equality in terms of income, relation to the means of production, power, and all other aspects are ignored by liberalism, because if they weren't then capitalism would not be able to justify itself. Marxism does not seek to make things more 'fair' or 'just' because these are reformist notions that seek to merely adjust a fundamentally contradictory system to suit the ideology of it. Egalitarianism is something that can only be valued within liberal ideology, which is capitalist; therefore, liberalism will use egalitarian arguments in other respects such as power, income, relation to the means of production, etc. in attempts to pacify the masses.

So far, according to you, Marxism is critiquing capitalism in a number of ways, specifically, by the means of an ideology, namely, egalitarianism. So you already understand that within the system of capitalism itself egalitarianism would be possible as a solution only within a certain problem necessitated by capitalism itself, or by the system or structure itself, and that marxism, according to you, in a way, makes us aware that egalitarianism is valued and can only be valued within a certain structure or system that is itself alienating its body politic from its means of production. Proaction!

>Marxism understands that in a communist society, worries about hierarchies or equality or fairness or justice would be moot as the individual would stop viewing others as impediments to their freedom; rather, they would realize their freedom rests on other people, and in turn others would realize this of them. Marxism is not a utopian project but instead a comprehensive philosophical system that projects a method of critique onto the world.

Now see this is where it gets dishonest. Addressing the first of the last points, you do make another kind of similar insight as to the ones previously spoken about, egalitarianism etc. That the very ideas of equality or fairness or justice in regards to people would be something of little value, or of little concern (worry), because those ideas only play within the very structure of the system that makes them of value in general. So in the last point was egalitarianism, that egalitarianism is so interesting and special and necessary and valued because it itself is a response to the alienation that comes from the system of capitalism itself. And you go on to make that point again, not just in regards to egalitarianism, but in regards to hierarchies, equality, fairness, and justice. It gets dishonest when you say this is not a utopian project because its not just a critique. A critique would allow more play.

>>15064791
The people advocating for such systems today rarely see themselves as part of this managerial class or as its enforcers. They are "educators" fighting for social change by highlighting class conflicts and nurturing class consience.
The liberal intelectual elites of late 19th and early 20th centuries, however, saw themselves as the vanguard of a new system of governance guided by science. They believed that it was their destiny to become this future managerial class. The dialetic of history was with them.

The difference between marxists and liberals is that liberal democracy is functional in the sense that it maintains the shrouded power of the real elites through expendable enforcers. This creates a functional structure of governance in which nothing really changes. The checks and balances are the true system. Representative democracy is useful to them because it obfuscates power and legitimizes the entire structure in the eyes of the masses. Marxists on the other hand advocate for an incoherent system riddled with contradictions and easily subverted, direct democracy. Without non-marxist measures like the ones employed by Stalin, the system simply would not work for long(see the awful spanish anarchist experience and how it was later subverted by the soviet union).

>>15062914
divine authority, numbskull

>>15065071
i gotta go to work for a bit but hopefully this thread is still up and we will continue to play with what's been said

>>15062801
Found the American neolib.

>>15065103
just get a job bro it's really not that hard

>>15062806
t. Didn't read the first chapter of Capital

>>15064978
Based observation. Especially within the context of transhumanism you can see this sort of redoubling of polemic schizophrenia

>>15062779
Bump

>>15063373
>not knowing who/what I'm drawing from.
then tell us you dumbass

>>15064730
just get insurance retard

>>15065075
Marxists advocate for direct democracy? Are you retarded?

absolutely BASED thread

>>15062789
"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."
Find a flaw

>>15062779
no one cares what he truly believed, the basic gist of it is: exploitation bad.

>>15064406
now you get it, marxists use fancy words but they just want a single hivemind. That's all this bullshit talk is, how to get a social hivemind. And then liberal capitalism will strive to create a computer hivemind.
Between the two, a human-centric model will have to assert itself, one where people and groups of people have sovereignty and the ability to differentiate from the rest.

Read pre-historic history, the course of history is one of non-differentiation to differentiation. From a non-distinct mass of humans to nations and cultures, and the globalists of all stripes hate it.

>>15066807
If it's going to be left up to you to determine your needs, it isn't up to me to make sure that they're fulfilled.

>>15066807
It doesn't say anything at all because ability and need are endlessly arguable via dialectic.

>>15066807
>From each according to their abilities
You're able to work 16 hour shifts 7 days a week in our factory, comrade.
>to each according to their needs
Here's your daily three slices of bread and an apple. Don't get greedy now.

>>15063188
>Society as a whole draws up a common plan of production and distribution and then enacts it.

I love how you think that's actually an answer.

>>15066876
>If it's going to be left up to you to determine your needs
Needs aren't determined by the opinion of the person with needs.

>it isn't up to me to make sure that they're fulfilled.
A Marxist would neither agree nor disagree with that statement in the context of communist society, because it rests on the assumption of private labour.

>>15065043
>Lol yes it does retard.
no.

>>15062779
>everyone would suddenly realise their own freedom
>not a utopian project

>>15062845
>Who are the people that robs stores in our societies?
I got two little numbers for you, 13 and 50

>>15063033
Begone redditnigger

>>15063935
This time for real right

Bump

>>15066923
I th-thought I could e-eat a meal like the community organizer, who works for the government, did... WHY DOES HE GET TO EAT SOMETHING BETTER? ISNT THIS COMMUNISM?!

Marx didn't understand supply and demand

>>15066807
Fuck your needs if you aren't useful. Communism doesn't incentivize being useful for the rest of us.

>>15067757
This IS communism. REAL communism. More real than any version of communism to exist as a pipe dream in a potheads skull.

>>15062845
>There is no trading.
But trading is civilization. When you take away trading, you take away civilization.

>>15066807
I need your body and organs bro. Thanks

Design a dream and erect a nightmare.

>>15062982

nonviolence is impractical and can never exist. those who advocate nonviolence are deluded and the most violent of anyone.

>>15068070
weird that he wrote about it extensively in Capital Vol. 3 then

>>15068118
>But trading is civilization.
citation needed

>>15066807

my "need" requires that you spend the rest of your life in prison for crimes against the state

>>15062801
S E E T H E

Based critique of value theory, OP.

>>15062779
The stock market, which empowers workers to have equity in their employers business, and the principle of equity owernship of business in general, has completely BTFO the assumptions of the class-based ownership of the means of production which underlie Marxist criticism of capitalism.

>>15062903
You are mistaken. I don't think ontology plays a picture fof Marx at all. At least not in the usual sense of there being a substance that underlies changes in reality, like for Spinoza or Descartes. He is a dialectician. Ontogical determinations are always supervenient to their sublations through particularities across universalizable substances. That is to say, not in Hegelianese, man's authority doesn't get the final say in producing communist society. Sure, humans are in a great part responsible, but it's ridiculous to say that communist society is not first possible without the conditions of worker consciousness and the means of production (notice how revolution is a correlative between human consciousness and material means). It was Lenin who made the mistake in believing that after revolution there would have to be unified authority (communist international, etc). Moreover, Liberalism is an ideology entirely predicated on the state: that the government and law protects one's human rights. But as Marx point outs (In on the Jewish question), political emancipation is not the same as human emancipation. Human ancipation would be unfettered by the need of a state and it's contradictions.

>>15065075
https://youtu.be/E-gnEykcgP0

>>15068703
You don’t have to exhaust your vocabulary here. Anon is making a simple point; the system is itself resting on assumptions that are taken to be self evident but without ever saying so. The anon your responding to calls is liberalism another anon points it out a different way here >>15063728
For me, regardless of what you want to call it, I find it to be a clear example of insufficient dissimulation. Any investigation into the ideology of something as grand a scale as society, say as Ibn Khaldun attempted, must begin with first principles that justify ones own.

>>15068703
I am not mistaken in the slightest. Again, very simply: Marx formulates the ontological categories of base and superstructure (these categories see minimal explicit reference, but are nevertheless there), and positions the former as ontologically prior to the latter. In doing so, he does not break from the liberal philosophical and economical traditions, but rather presents a continuation of it (see Hobbes's state of nature, in which man is presented as the condition for society, authority and material relations; see Smith's land of barter, in which, again, man is presented in the same manner). Consequently, his system inherits the incoherencies and contradictions innate to these traditions. The loci of these incoherencies are the matters of governance and authority.

>>15066932
Like question, like answer.

>>15068118
No, trading is trading.

>>15068640
Wrong. If you own the means of production in any significant sense then you can either live off of just owning them or use them directly, as your own property, to produce your means of subsistence (either as commodities that you exchange for your means of subsistence or just directly). That isn't the situation of workers who own shares. Legal ownership of some scraps is not equal to actual ownership.

>>15069103
>Marx formulates the ontological categories of base and superstructure
Those aren't ontological categories. Just stop posting, you're writing absolute gibberish, you sound like you just walked out of a philosophy 101 class. It's pathetic.

>>15062845
So does your theory of human behaviour just not account for white collar crime or what?

>>15069513
>Those aren't ontological categories.
You're approaching the word "ontological" from a classical philosophical (and accordingly narrow) perspective; stuff, things, being, becoming etc. It would be a mistake to do so however, as I'm using the term in only the broadest sense:
>a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them
As it stands now my critique has gone unrebuked. I recommend you read a dictionary before trying again.

>>15069573
Not him, but you are fucking retarded. Ontology is ontology. Use different words if you want to say different things you absolute imbecile

>>15069637
>Ontology is ontology
If only defining words was this easy.
My word choice was apt. The onus isn't on me to teach retards (including yourself) what words mean.

>>15064406
No, your body is not property.

Your phone is your personal property.

Your land is private property.

>>15066875
>A community of humanity working collectively for the good of all
>single hivemind
Pretty big leap there bud.

>>15069103
interesting and pretty convincing critique anon. where can i read more about this?

>>15069573
>As it stands now my critique has gone unrebuked.
The pool of vomit that came out of my mouth last time I drank too much remained unrebuked too. Go figure.

>>15069665
samefag

>>15062845
>Who are the people that robs stores in our societies? They're poor people

Only because they're even bad at stealing. Plenty of people who don't need to steal end up stealing, but it's more sophisticated than robbing stores.

Poverty is far from the only cause of criminality.

>>15062779
Surprised nobody's commented on the masonic signaling yet.

>>15066807
I need free pussy. What then?

>>15069801
Needing pussy and being literally unable to get it is a disability. The disabled deserve dignified treatment by their species. Fortunately this disability is easy to treat by a nurse.

>>15069547
>So does your theory of human behaviour just not account for white collar crime or what
white collar criminals are just regular capitalists a bit lower down on the chain who infringe upon the territory of the rulers. You think insider trading, embezzlement, bribery, bought votes, ponzi schemes, and all of that aren't practiced without punishment by the most powerful class in a capitalist society? If you want a quick education in this, just watch the big short. Only the elimination of private property entirely would end white collar crime, because private property is white collar crime.

>>15069665
Bertrand De Jouvenel
>>15069765
You've got nothing, faggot.

>>15069513
You didn't actually answer the question. The socialist commonwealth would function exactly like any given modern corporation.

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/252991029