/lit/ - Literature

>>15572956
Based

>>15572956
how will he ever recover???

>>15572956
rack em

bro that was epic im literally shakin rn

>>15572956
Have you read him? You sound and probably are retarded

>>15572956
Why are there at least two Marx shitflinging threads and at least five threads about psychoanalysing left-wingers at any given time in the catalog?
Does it not get boring? More importantly, should you not be more worried with arriving at actual truths rather than mindlessly fighting about unclear ideas?

>>15573014
>t.

>>15572956
and what's your retort?

>>15573028
i swear i saw 5 goddamn marx threads in the catalogue earlier this morning

>>15573052
1. Money is good
2. Government is necessary to arrest ne'er-do-wells like you

>>15572956
shit, I should have thought of this
t. Marx

>>15573061
Jesus.

>>15573073
found the corporate bootlicker

>>15573052
No property ownership means no work force incentive.

>>15572956
>Imagine reading this guy after the age of 14
I now, right?

>>15573205
Lol.

>>15573240
Please explain to me what the incentive will be across all the different industries.

>>15573254
Paychecks?

>>15573270
To do fucking what with? Buy bread?

>>15573273
Sure.

>>15573336
Thanks Socrates, you fucking autist.

>>15573348
You sound confused.

>>15573205
Correct.
>>15573240
Retard.

>>15573422
Not very bright, are ya lad?

>>15573381
I was referring to this. My point is that people want more than just bread, and if there's more to have than just bread, you need industries full of workers, but not everyone has the same tastes, so you need more industries and more workers, and so on. In the end, you have an intricate system that requires property ownership to stay motivated.

>>15573425
What are you? A commie? You are braindead if you are.

>>15573205
>No property ownership means no work force incentive.
i'm a zoomer and i don't have any hope of ever affording a home or retiring or even to raise a family. what kind of property are you talking about? owning a factory or rental properties on the other side of the country?

>>15573452
If you own anything at all and partake in any luxuries, you can say goodbye to those once property ownership is off the table. Luxuries aren't welcome in communist society, it defeats the principle of the thing.

>>15573437
>I was referring to this. My point is that people want more than just bread, and if there's more to have than just bread, you need industries full of workers, but not everyone has the same tastes, so you need more industries and more workers, and so on.
So far I'm with you. It's called having an economy.

>In the end, you have an intricate system that requires property ownership to stay motivated.
This is the non-sequitur. In the current system, the vast majority of people are perfectly motivated to work for a small fraction of their share of revenue. Eliminating the parasitic capital class would enlarge the workers' share and hence only increase that motivation.

>>15573480
>If you own anything at all and partake in any luxuries, you can say goodbye to those once property ownership is off the table.
Lol, what?

>>15573496
> Eliminating the parasitic capital class would enlarge the workers' share and hence only increase that motivation.
Yeah like the shithole of the USSR right?

>>15573014
t.

>>15573526
Replacing a feudal aristocracy with government bureaucrats as the de-facto ownership class does not constitute the abolition of capital.

>>15573496
>In the current system, the vast majority of people are perfectly motivated to work for a small fraction of their share of revenue.
That's not what motivates them. What motivates them is being able to obtain the things they want with their money. Dangerous and/or mentally taxing work typically pays more, for obvious reasons, and there are greater luxuries out there for those people, since it is necessary to have recreation to avoid burnout. Greater luxuries means having things not everyone can afford, and then we go right back to class struggle.

>>15573507
Do you not know what a luxury is? It means something you can afford. But not all jobs are equal, so one type of luxury isn't going to cut it for everyone.

>>15573580
Ahh, the communism has never been tried type, got it.

>>15573531
>t. has hard drive full of shemale cosplay pics
Western degeneracy at its finest.

>>15573595
>Greater luxuries means having things not everyone can afford, and then we go right back to class struggle.
No, that's not what class struggle is.

>Do you not know what a luxury is? It means something you can afford. But not all jobs are equal, so one type of luxury isn't going to cut it for everyone.
What on earth are you trying to say? The question of ownership of the means of production has nothing to do with "luxuries".

>>15572956
Imagine evincing a 14 yo's understanding of this guy

>>15573595
>That's not what motivates them. What motivates them is being able to obtain the things they want with their money. Dangerous and/or mentally taxing work typically pays more, for obvious reasons, and there are greater luxuries out there for those people, since it is necessary to have recreation to avoid burnout.
Again, that's called having an economy. Nothing at all to do with the question of capital.

>>15573623
The work force stays motivated because of the luxuries, and not all workers are taking on the same risk-free jobs. How are you going to incentivize those higher-paying jobs if there aren't higher-costing luxuries to make them worthwhile? And what do you think happens when there's higher-paying jobs? They create distinct economic classes over time. People want to live in bigger houses. People want to live in nicer areas. They aren't going to accept all owning the same thing—essentially nothing—when they're doing harder work than other people.

>>15573665
Based Rouseau

>>15573693
Fuck Rousseau

>>15572956
Why would everyone be paid the same if everything was free? You're obviously contradicting yourself (Marx ofc never said either of these things).

>>15573480
what does a luxury mean to you?
>housing
>food
>water, electricity, gas
>healthcare
>means of communication and transportation
at the bare minimum i think everyone should be entitled to these so i don't consider any of these luxuries

>>15573731
Not everyone is entitled to the beautiful beach house, though.

>>15572956
>late stage communism
>wage labor
If you're going to critique marxist theory you should probably read the marxist theory first.

>>15573731
>at the bare minimum i think everyone should be entitled to these
Who's gonna pay that?

>>15573749
of course not beach front properties are more limited and desired but we could entitle everyone to be able to rent a beach house at least once in a decade or so. i ask you again, what does a luxury mean to you??

>>15573783
>we could entitle everyone to be able to rent a beach house at least once in a decade or so
LOL yeah that's a real motivator for the guy busting his ass 60+ hours a week 50 weeks a year in a job very few people have the courage to do.

>what does a luxury mean to you?
Something frivolous but worth my time and effort.

>>15573778
the same people that pay trillions of dollars in war every year duh

>>15573814
dude you are misinformed if you think most of the people who own beach properties actually work for a living.

>>15573844
We know that there's high-paying jobs that are exhausting and dangerous for a fact. We don't know what you just said for a fact. So I wonder which of us isn't full of shit?

>>15573844
>the same people that pay trillions of dollars in war every year duh
So you want the government to tax trillions more for everyone to pay? Nice.

>>15572956
Not going to lie, this is something a liberal would 100% say and they wouldn’t have a read a lick of marx.

>>15573665
>The work force stays motivated because of the luxuries, and not all workers are taking on the same risk-free jobs. How are you going to incentivize those higher-paying jobs if there aren't higher-costing luxuries to make them worthwhile?
Uh, through different sized paychecks?

>And what do you think happens when there's higher-paying jobs?
Nothing.

>They create distinct economic classes over time.
No, they don't. Not without private ownership of capital.

>>15573880
>Uh, through different sized paychecks?
We've been through this already. It's not the paychecks that motivate, but the luxuries they can afford with them. Riskier and more exhausting jobs pay more, but it's the more expensive luxuries that make them worthwhile, and your living space can be a luxury (and is for many, many people).

>>15573898
I don't understand why do you keep mentioning "luxuries". The abolition of capital does not prevent you from buying and consuming whatever consumable products you want.

>>15573869
That's because OP is a liberal who hasn't read marx

>>15573993
How do you retire to a beach house after a life of agonizing work in a system that has abolished capital?

I've been wanting to read Marx, but all I see is brainlet middle school tier posts like these

>>15573623
>>15573783

Is Marxism really that bad?

>>15574010
One can purchase an apple now for present consumption, or purchase the right to eat an apple at some future time t. There is no fundamental difference. Retirement funding is just a form of the latter.

>>15574097
If you want to read Marx, its better to just jump straight in to Marx rather than worrying about the autistic internet arguments surrounding Communism.

>>15574097
>I've been wanting to read X, but I keep seeing retarded posts about X on 4chan... what to do??

>>15573014
>>15573028
like half the marx threads you get people who have actually read him and those are decent. ones like this are just shitty bait threads

>>15574117
A beach house is not an apple lol. Apples grow on trees, literally and figuratively. Beach houses do not. I also eat an apple in a couple of minutes and then shit it out some hours later. A beach house is something I want to live in for many years.

>>15574120
>>15574133
When people bring up other ideologies (liberalism, ancap, fascism, ...) I can at least understand their arguments, even if I disagree. They at least make sense and they seem to have a grip on human psychology.
But communist are like "you'd get a ticket to use the beach house once in a decade".

>>15574097
>Is Marxism really that bad?
Yes

>>15574233
Nice bait.

>>15572956
anyone who disagrees with this take is a midwit

>>15574220
If you abolish capital ownership, there is no fundamental difference between an apple and a beach house. Just as the abolition of slavery did not make long-term labor contracts illegal, the abolition of capital will not make it illegal to occupy a beach house for as long as you want and can afford.

>>15574233
>They at least make sense and they seem to have a grip on human psychology.
>But communist are like "you'd get a ticket to use the beach house once in a decade".
I don't know who you're arguing with but one of these is more reasonable than the other.

>>15573783
>>15574097
>>15574233
Samefag.

>>15574293
>If you abolish capital ownership, there is no fundamental difference between an apple and a beach house.
lol so beach houses being harder to produce than apples and being impossible to efficiently replicate (since we can't replicate beaches) unlike apples are properties that suddenly vanish when capital vanishes?

>>15574233
Marxist communists picture a world where it's just you and your senpai/bros subsisting on a farm and chilling without any exterior authority and believe that model can be scaled up to a country of millions with equal cohesion.

>>15574233
We already do that now, do we really a over bearing tankie government to do this?

>>15574322
I didn't realize f-a-m had a world filter

>>15574293
>>15574311
Also,
>the abolition of capital will not make it illegal to occupy a beach house for as long as you want and can afford.
What exactly is capital if not a beach house that you occupy for as long as you want and can afford?

>>15574293
> Just as the abolition of slavery did not make long-term labor contracts illegal
Are you literally fucking retarded? Slavery isn't voluntary whereas long term labor contracts are voluntary, they aren't anywhere near to be the same thing, what a fucking retarded example.

>>15574322
You're thinking of Anarchist communists. Marxists don't picture a world, per se.

>>15574339
He's a fucking idiot who believes in explotation theory, don't bother.

>>15574311
Sorry, I'm not following you. All material resources are finite, including apples. Nothing vanishes when capital is abolished. I'm not seeing how anything you said addresses my post.

>>15574366
Marx himself was an ancom. Ancom is the closest interpretation of his original designs, which he considered to be exemplified by the short-lived Paris commune for example.

>>15574339
You seem not to grasp the distinction between ownership and usufruct and other forms of consumption rights. Is that the core concept that you're not getting?

>>15574322
t. never read Marx

>>15572956
MARX BTFO BY BASED /LIT/ERATI

>>15574249
I'm thinking there must be a smart person defending communism, because you have guys like Žižek and so on and so on.
But even he doesn't defend it and basically just says "communism is when we get together to fight climate change" and he's really just a boring neoliberal.
The more I look into this, the more it all just seems like one big LARP, mostly fueled by resentment towards rich people.

>>15574233
Anon, if you are really aking this question in good faith, please keep in mind that a good portion of Marx's work is more descriptive than presecriptive. It is based on an earnest attempt by Marx to understand and explain the dynamics of capitalism as it was emerging and spreading globally around him. An awful lot of the social sciences owe at least some debt to this strand of his work, as it touches on grand questions of history, society, and economics. Many disagree with his conclusions and theories, but in my opinion it is hard to deny the breadth of research that went into Marx's work. His ideas are worth engaging with on that count alone.

That being said, Marx also did spend time advocating for and organizing real political movements and programs. This sort of thing is often inseperable with the present histrocial circumstances of Marx's time. If you are curious of coming to an understanding of Leftist goals and visions for the future, please do not take online debates in abstract as indicative. Leftists movements, as are all movements really, are often highly influenced and shaped by their historical context.

>>15574356
Slavery is just the ownership of human capital.

>>15574417
No one has read marx, least of all the rich, white, lefties who claim to be marxists.

>>15574405
That's simply...wrong. Marx believed the final stage of human development would be stateless, moneyless, and classless. That doesn't mean he necessarily opposed the idea of social class or the state in the same way modern anarchists do. You have to remember that Marxists don't propose any specific social system. Instead, Marxism is a way of looking at historical trends through the lens of class struggle.

If you were to ask Marx if the Paris Commune was an example of socialism, he would say no.

>>15574450
None of the pseuds on this fucking board ever read the philosophers

>>15574426
Zizek is a moron. Stop paying attention to meme "thinkers" on social media.

>>15574444
Don't give a shit about your terminology, one is voluntary and other isn't, period. They aren't the same thing.

>>15574426
I have only read one book of his, so I cannot really elaborate, but I understand that Zizek's views on communism are developed a bit more in his books than in the op-eds he writes

>>15574426
Fredric Jameson is a modern Marxist that I like, although most of his writings are on postmodernity rather than anything else.

>>15574467
Don't fight the digits, lolbertarian fuckboy. Your moralizing about what's "voluntary" or not is irrelevant.

Marxoids dabbed on and seething.

wew boi

>>15574505
Blah blah, slavery is not contracts. Little boy.

>>15574499
I'm a big fan of Eric Wolf, although I do not see him brought up much online, even in left-circles.

>>15574377
>>15574407
What I'm not following is how anything would be different in this theoretical society of yours. You'd still have people competing over limited resources, staking a claim over those resources for the duration of their life through their efforts, and effectively creating a divide in the populace through a difference in material claim. The only real difference I see is that now people can't pass anything they claim down to their children, which is not only one of the most appealing aspects of many luxuries like beach houses, and one of the most effective ways of producing higher kinds of individuals like artists, inventors, thinkers, and other exceptional talents, but that change would essentially destroy the family unit. So, hilariously enough, all I can foresee from such a structural change is even MORE competition than before, and even GREATER class struggle. Was that the goal you were striving for with all this?

>>15574451
>If you were to ask Marx if the Paris Commune was an example of socialism, he would say no.
Legitimately false. Marx literally wrote a book about the commune, and answered that question unsolicited.

>Marx, in The Civil War in France (1871), written during the Commune, praised the Commune's achievements, and described it as the prototype for a revolutionary government of the future, "the form at last discovered" for the emancipation of the proletariat. Marx wrote that, "Working men's Paris, with its Commune, will be forever celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society. Its martyrs are enshrined in the great heart of the working class. Its exterminators, history has already nailed to that eternal pillory from which all of the prayers of their priest will not avail to redeem them."

>>15574519
Slaves aren't people with rights, you idealist space cadet. They are economic inputs just like land and factory equipment.

>>15574550
Who are you to say who has rights and who hans't? You are nothing.

>>15573852
>We don't know what you just said for a fact.

I think you would have to very ignorant to think that in today's society pay is directly correlated with actual contribution to the economy. The corporate hierarchy is a ladder built on dicksucking and conformity.

>>15574443
Does Marx realize that some people are genetically more intelligent and more capable and that on average they are more common in the rich upper classes?

>>15573880
>Not without private ownership of capital.

I find private ownership of capital to be often superior to corporate ownership of capital.

How do you have a system better than the modern corporate climate?

>>15574539
Just because Marx thought the Commune was good does not mean he thought it was a working example of socialism.

>>15574578
That's not what capitalism is built on. Read a non-Marxist book on capitalism.

>>15574576
Meanwhile you are the omniscient dispenser of all rights? Gotcha.

>>15574622
That's what you believe, not me.

>>15574599
"Private" in the broad sense, not "private" as opposed to publicly-traded corporations.

>>15574339

As someone who has engaged with their thought frequently, this is another one of their (many) word games.

They could be more clear if they were actually trying to be understood.

They distinguish between 'private property' and 'personal property' (or some variation thereof, they like making you ask to explain their terms, so they can lecture you.)

They try to class factories, freighting ships, and the like as 'private property' or 'capital' which they seek to abolish. Houses, cars, your toothbrush, etc. are 'personal property' which is as kosher as Marx himself.

Now, the fact that such a distinction can be difficult (if I have a workshop and a lathe in my basement?) to impossible, or at worst, meaningless, is not of consequence.

The point is you and I have wasted all this time playing their semantic games.

>>15574639
No, you are claiming that only you know the correct way to distribute rights. You are trying to link them to some absolute morality you adhere to.

>>15574600
There is no working example of Marxist socialism and there never will be, it's an oxymoron. That doesn't change that Marx explicitly identified the commune as a model of his ideas, and if fact the occurrence of commune was perhaps the most important event in the development of Marx's thought.

>>15574649
t. doesn't understand the well-defined economic difference between ownership and use

>>15574669
You believe man has the final say on what are rights and what isn't. You are the one who believes to be a omniscient dispenser of rights.

>>15574649
But what the fuck is the endgame? That's what I'd like to know.

>>15574610
You've never had a corporate job, have you?

>>15574580
Marx was concerned with man as a social entity, not as an individual genetic unit. A dumb feudal lord and a smart feudal lords ultimatley both occupy the same class position, and will have similar economic interests.

>>15574610

I'm not a Marxist, I'm speaking from experience in the corporate world. You are too lost in theory to see reality. The fact you would say, 'Go Read a Book on Capitalism' rather than 'Go experience modern capitalism directly' is more than enough evidence of your myopia.

>>15574695
Rights are a social construct, correct. They do not objectively exist in the natural world.

>>15574702
You've never read a non-Marxist book on capitalism, have you? If you did, you'd know that what you're referring to is not an intended effect of the system, but a criminal exploitation of it (unless you're referring to people hiring based on attitude, which is a hiring method not at all at odds with a person's "actual contribution to the economy").

>>15574641

You're not addressing the question. How will your management of capital be superior to the corporate bureaucracy, which as I see it, is simply socialism for anyone with a College Degree?

>>15574722
I know, thanks for being honest.

>>15574735
Which specific crimes are you referring to?

>>15574699

As with anything that's gotten as large as it has, there are many. A primary one is recruiting useful idiots.

You see, not everyone thinks the way you do. You see words and try to interpret meaning. When you come to contradictions you stop and try to resolve them. In short, you engage in critical thought.

They don't. They rely on groupthink and cult tactics. One of the most widespread tactics is seeing whether you can get people to repeat talking points that are, essentially, oxy morons. When you see someone you've been conditioning into a drone contradict himself sentence to sentence with no indication of conflict, you know you've mentally enslaved him.

>>15574736
I oppose corporate capitalism and every other type of capitalism. Not sure what you're trying to say.

>>15574735

You've never read about the creation of fiat currency, have you?

>>15572956
Everything in you statement is false.
You get access to production according to the amount of time you worked.
>also no state will be necessary to enforce this wooooo
Reality reversal (due to commodity fetishism and alienation). A State is necessary to enforce private property of the means of production. Not a classless society.

>>15574771
>projecting this hard
Call a shrink.

>>15574699
Broadly speaking, Marx lived to see the transition of control rom a feudal class- with power based on right to land and serf labor- to a bourgeois class, whose power is based on control of factory machinery and a right to sell labor contracts. The idea is that the creation and consolodation of machinery and technology faciliated the rise of the bourgeois, and in fact required them, but will eventually develop to such a point that they are no longer neccesary. I know that is very abstract and frustratingly short on "real world examples," but the general goal is that capitalism's creation of a killed, organized mass working class can mean a world where that working class can govern and mamage their work without outside control not invovled in the productive process.

>>15574787

I apologize, I'll try to keep my clauses more succinct.

How will your 'socialist' management of capital amount to anything different than the 'corporate' management of capital?

That's why I said I prefer private ownership to corporate. Small businesses run by a family are far more human, and superior to faceless corporations bullying their workers.

How will 'socialism' manage capital in a way superior to private ownership? How will this be different from modern corporate bureaucracy?

>>15574790
So you haven't lol

>>15574799
>attempt at shaming

See? Even as you fight you prove me right. Please keep struggling.

>>15573228
read parenti, socialism lifted millions out of feudal serfdom and delivered them a pretty comfortable lifestyle, all the while being under siege by the entire capitalist world

>>15574823

Protip little one, I'm the one making the long posts insulting socialists.

You've been conned. You've been trained to see them as your enemy, rather than as broken pawns. That's why you think just because I dislike modern capitalism (what I have been referring to as corporatism) I must be one of them.

You decry the abuse of capitalism, yet you've been defending it because you hate socialists more.

>>15574814
Not who you responded to, but as a leftist I have a good faith question to you. I agree with your point regarding small family businesess. Having worked for both large corporations and small businesses, I greatly prefer the latter. Usually, the 'boss' puts in a lot of work, and even the problems are, as you say, more human. That being said, capitalism seems to tend towards monopoly and ever larger firms. How do we prevent that? And what about industries that cannot be managed on a small, artisanal scale, like auto manufacturing, nuclear power plants, mega-construction, etc? On that front, it seems to me the only antitidote to corporate exploitation and greed is strong unions and government regulation. What would you say?

>>15574812
Sounds like nothing would change besides a change in owners' hands on the basis of who the hell knows what.

>>15574869
You've given me absolutely nothing that makes sense about how communism would work and why it's better than capitalism. There was never even a response to >>15574524 so personally, I don't think you've read anything non-Marxist on the matter.

>>15574524
>What I'm not following is how anything would be different in this theoretical society of yours.
You wouldn't have absentee landlords and hipster trust-fund kinds holding the reigns of the economy, for one. You wouldn't have people making money through money alone. You wouldn't have the hardest-working people earning the least, while idle rich parasites receive billions doing nothing all day other than high-end coke. Abolishing ownership of human capital (slavery) was a step forward, but didn't go far enough. The Georgists favor abolition of ownership of land and natural resource capital, which, if implemented, would also be a step forward. But the full solution is abolition of the capital in general. It does nothing but exacerbate unjust societal divides, and only reduces economic efficiency and the cultivation of human potential.

>The only real difference I see is that now people can't pass anything they claim down to their children, which is not only one of the most appealing aspects of many luxuries like beach houses, and one of the most effective ways of producing higher kinds of individuals like artists, inventors, thinkers, and other exceptional talents
It's true that if private capital goes, so does inheritance of private capital. As far as its impact on artists and 'thinkers', I think we'll manage. People said the same thing about the abolition of the aristocracy -- and, in that case, they were probably right! That's because what replaced feudal aristocracy was brute commercialized industrialized capitalism, which has no interest in the finer things. Only what sells. The result is the vulgarian cultural situation you see in the West today.

>>15574878

Thank you for your post.

Your question hits on a deep foundational fault here. It's difficult to answer satisfactorily.

The forces at play here are deeper than the tapestry of ideological buzzwords that most of this thread has been.

The easiest thing I can note is that the ruling class has used many vectors to make these trends happen. It may seem like monopoly is inevitable, but it generally is the family's choice to sell. In this regard, you could see the weakening of the family unit as one vector. In my own experience a family owned business 100 years old was sold because there was no heir to pass it to. You could see how weakening the family unit weakens family owned business. This is just one very small piece.

I would suggest you study power dynamics and the history of fiat currency:

>the only antitidote to corporate exploitation and greed is strong unions and government regulation

What happens when the corporation buys the government and union leaders? That's what I mean by power dynamics and how slippery this is. We like to imagine the world in neat boxes of Reds and Blues, but individuals are free actors. Perhaps the most necessary component is getting more people to understand these topics so they are less vulnerable to being exploited by these much larger forces.

>>15574885
Yes. A change in ownership from a small few who often are not involved in the actual work of wealh production, to great control of said production by those who do it.

As for how, Marx's theory was that the creation and organization (for labor) of the working class would translate into a politically aware and organized working class. In a sense, this did prove true. The creation of factories meant the creation of unions and union parties, which vied for greater control of the factory and worker friendly legislation (minimun wage, 5 day workweek, etc). Of course, the labor movement has suffered several major defeat, especially in the late 20th century. Marx may very well have been wrong on this point, but there is a lot of debate about if/why this is the case.

>>15574960
Thank you for the response. I really agree with your final point. I think an understanding of history is especially powerful for this reason, and where I personally find Marx the most useful (as an analyst, not a visionary or fortune teller).

I admittedly do not know a lot about fiat currency, besides basic definitions. Would you recomend any essays, articles, books, etc that you have found particularly useful?

>>15574963
>why this is the case.

The tele lobotomized the just recently aware working class.

>>15574915
I see, so you're just angry that you're not making more money? Because that's what it sounds like when you go off on a tangent about shit that either doesn't happen or happens as an exception (as if there is ANY system in existence that is perfect and doesn't lead to some form of degeneracy) and not as an intended effect of the system.

I mean, fucking really, the hardest-working people earn the least? Get a grip. It's true that the rich get richer, but that's only because getting access to better education and resources and having more idle time to yourself is a luxury in the first place. The people who worked hard to obtain that luxury in the past were able to grant their children the privilege to think and turn their luxuries into even more luxuries. This is quite literally the whole fucking point I was trying to make with work force incentive: without this opportunity, who is going to do the harder and more dangerous work? And if no one is willing to, how is society going to keep functioning?

>which has no interest in the finer things. Only what sells.
That's wrong. When you accumulate wealth in capitalist society, no one tells you how to spend it. You're free to focus on "the finer things." Meanwhile, everyone throughout the hierarchy also gets what they want, in accordance with the quality and meaningfulness of their work, thanks to capitalism's ability to generate an interest in creating products that appeal to anyone with disposable income.

You also really didn't address the crux of my argument. What really changes when all is said and done when you'd still have competition and you'd still have class struggle? Do you honestly believe that there would be no exploitation after abolishing capital? How delusional can you be?

>>15572956
what all 14 years old say after not reading a single page of marx

hope is just a decent bait

>>15572956
Did even read or just collected posts from pol?

>>15574963
>from a small few who often are not involved in the actual work of wealh production
They aren't involved in the work, but they are involved in the vision behind the work. Workers know nothing about the vision and it's unproductive for them to be focused on this while they do their part, and without the visionary, everyone is just doing things to do things. Work becomes meaningless busywork if it's not abandoned altogether.

As for workers' unions, I don't disagree with their existence.

>>15575023
>without this opportunity, who is going to do the harder and more dangerous work?
This may come as a shock to you, but the people currently doing the hardest and most dangerous work are not trust-fund hipsters in Brooklyn. They are low-status people who have to do that shitty work in order to survive.

>And if no one is willing to, how is society going to keep functioning?
People are more than willing to do crap jobs if you pay them. In fact, even in the current system, there are people cleaning toilets, doing roofing work, mining, logging, etc who don't even make minimum wage. Everything you are asserting about "work", "incentives", and "luxuries" is directly contrary to the facts. Increasing the pay of those actually doing the shitty work will only increase the incentive to take such jobs.

>When you accumulate wealth in capitalist society, no one tells you how to spend it. You're free to focus on "the finer things."
Maybe in theory. In practice you get the sort of crude degenerate 'culture' you see in places like the United States. When your only goal is "creating products that appeal to anyone with disposable income", all you end up doing is creating an empty atomized consumer-oriented nonculture. That's the cancer that capitalism spreads beyond the economy to the society at large.

>What really changes when all is said and done when you'd still have competition and you'd still have class struggle?
Competition is a good thing, and will exist wherever humans exist. Class struggle is certainly not about varying access to "luxury consumer products"; it's about ownership and power.

>>15572956
Sir, this is /lit/, you need to have read at least three above young-adult level books to post here.

>>15575164
>They aren't involved in the work, but they are involved in the vision
HAHAHAHA - good one.

>Workers know nothing about the vision and it's unproductive for them to be focused on this while they do their part
Shareholders generally know nothing about the 'vision' either, and they theoretically control the management through representatives on the board of directors. Giving workers instead ultimate control of their companies doesn't mean they make day-to-day operational decisions, any more than your grandmother living off her 401K does. Everyone hires specialists (doctors, lawyers, managers) to take care of matters beyond the scope of their own expertise.

>>15575170
>They are low-status people who have to do that shitty work in order to survive.
Corporation CEOs, surgeons, rocket scientists, public officials, national security agents, welders, and so on aren't exactly low-status people and aren't exactly doing their work just to survive. They want luxuries, and most of them want to raise families who can also do just as well, if not better than they did.

>Increasing the pay of those actually doing the shitty work will only increase the incentive to take such jobs.
Right, and this is already how things work.

>In practice you get the sort of crude degenerate 'culture' you see in places like the United States.
You don't know anything about the culture of the United States.

>Class struggle is certainly not about varying access to "luxury consumer products"; it's about ownership and power.
Even when those luxuries are limited resources and desired occupation of them is lifetime? Ownership and power are luxuries, by the way; probably the two biggest in the world that you want to deprive people of.

>>15575239
>HAHAHAHA - good one
How are the workers (who actually include the managers you despise, by the way—fuck your bullshit definition that excludes them) going to know what the market is interested in? Do you honestly think people will patiently wait for these people to figure it all about before they start operating the machines?

>>15575403
>How are the workers (who actually include the managers you despise, by the way—fuck your bullshit definition that excludes them)
Excuse me? My definition includes them. Your definition excludes them.

>going to know what the market is interested in?
This is basic division of labor. The marketing specialists are paid to know what the market is interested in.

>Do you honestly think people will patiently wait for these people to figure it all about before they start operating the machines?
What? Can you rephrase your post? It doesn't make any sense.

>>15574233
>But communist are like "you'd get a ticket to use the beach house once in a decade".
Can anyone explain to me why this is such an outlandish idea? I haven't bought into the commie rhetoric yet but this doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. The way we structure the economy now you basically have to be a millionaire or inherit the house to enjoy a vacation at the beach. Why wouldn't it be fair to impede on the private property rights of these few people to equitably distribute vacations at the beach? I'd sure as fuck like to rent a beach house for a week or so for my family without it having to cost an arm and a leg.

>>15575434
So "marketing specialists" are okay, but the specialists even higher up the hierarchy where matters become far more abstract aren't? What gives?

>>15575456
All workers are "okay". Not sure what you're trying to say. The "visionaries" you speak of literally work for the company and collect a paycheck.

>>15575294
>Corporation CEOs, surgeons, rocket scientists, public officials, national security agents, welders, and so on aren't exactly low-status people and aren't exactly doing their work just to survive.
Apart from welders (wtf?), those are among the most highly prized, least dangerous, highest status, and most well-compensated jobs on the planet. There is no risk of lack of incentive to take those jobs.

>Right, and this is already how things work.
Not quite. Those at the bottom take whatever they can get. They are not driven by the prospect of "luxuries".

>Even when those luxuries are limited resources and desired occupation of them is lifetime?
Yes, when it comes to the exclusive right to use or consume.

>Ownership and power are luxuries, by the way
Sure, you can call them that. Ownership of slaves is also a luxury. Being a king is a luxury. What I'm distinguishing is the luxury of exclusive use and consumption of material goods from the "luxury" of ownership, control, and power.

>>15575453
>Can anyone explain to me why this is such an outlandish idea?
Motivation. If someone can't acquire more wealth, he's not going to put in more effort. As a consequence the society overall becomes poorer, like all socialist societies so far (those that lasted more than a few months).

>Why wouldn't it be fair to impede on the private property rights of these few people to equitably distribute vacations at the beach?
Why would it be fair, if you don't provide as much value as the rich people?

>>15574451
>stateless, moneyless, and classless. That doesn't mean he necessarily opposed the idea of social class or the state in the same way modern anarchists do.
What does this even mean? I genuinely have no idea what you're saying

>>15574189
I've never once read an opinion on marx where the one stating the opinion wasn't told that he read marx wrong. this happens with nietzsche too.

>>15574293
>occupy a beach house for as long as you want and can afford.
So you can still rent property? Who do you rent from?

>>15575557
Those jobs aren't the "least dangerous," imbecile. They have MASSIVE stakes and they are EXHAUSTING. Do you think a CEO's job ever really ends? Do you think a national security agent doesn't take his life into his own hands just by being in that position? You know fuck-all about hard work if you think those are desirable jobs.

>>15575679
Since natural resources like land and oil would be owned by the citizens collectively, payment for use of the land itself would be distributed equally to every citizen. On the other hand, payment for the use of any built structures (or other products of human labor) would accrue to the specific group of workers who designed and constructed them.

>>15575771
Statistically they are among the least dangerous. Loggers and fishing workers have the most dangerous jobs, and they are not usually billionaires, to put it mildly. Most 'national security agents' have cushy desk jobs. None of this has any relevance to the question on hand, of course. Salary differentials are perfectly compatible with the abolition of private capital.

>>15575591
>rich people are more deserving than poor people
I guess my definition of "fair" is just completely different. I don't think it's fair for a few people to be entitled to own beach houses forever while the majority of people are paywalled from ever enjoying a vacation there with their families. In my view, we already practice things like Eminent Domain where we force people to give up their private property for the public good. For example the state can force people out of their homes to build highways or the state prevents you from owning nukes for everyone's safety. Why would extending this power to beach houses be a step too far? I think everyone should be able to have a beach house vacation at least once in their lives for free or at tax payer expense.

>>15575818
Your idea of danger ends at physical danger, and even there you're wrong. A public official or national security agent is at great danger physically when there's civil unrest and international threats; his danger can also lead to him being KIDNAPPED and TORTURED, unlike loggers and fishing workers. Positions like CEO, surgeon, rocket scientist, and such, meanwhile, would mentally DESTROY the average person; they couldn't handle that level of responsibility no matter how much they would like to dream themselves capable of it. Assuming they were even capable of educating and dedicating themselves to the necessary level for those jobs in the first place.

Fuck, for you to think these are cushiony jobs really shows how goddamn ignorant you are. This is PRECISELY why you idiots are in shitty jobs getting shitty pay and not running the show. NO ONE WANTS YOUR DUMB ASS RUNNING THINGS.

>>15575818
>Salary differentials are perfectly compatible with the abolition of private capital.
Is money (salary) not private capital? Can it not be transferred to other persons freely, which results in a de facto capitalistic economy?

>>15575771
Apart from aircraft pilots, none of the top 20 most dangerous jobs offer salaries that even hit 6 figures.

1) Logging workers ($38,840)
2) Fishers and related fishing workers ($28,310)
3) Sailors and marine oilers ($40,730)
4) Aircraft pilots and flight engineers ($111,930)
5) Paving, surfacing, and tamping equipment operators ($39,120)
6) Dredge, excavating, and loading machine operators ($42,950)
7) Derrick, rotary drill, and service unit operators, oil, gas, and mining ($49,000)
8) Other transportation workers ($24,480)
9) Roofers ($38,970)
10) Maintenance workers, machinery ($45,540)
11) Woodworking machine setters, operators, and tenders ($29,100)
12) Septic tank servicers and sewer pipe cleaners ($37,950)
13) Refuse and recyclable material collectors ($36,160)
14) Structural iron and steel workers ($52,610)
15) Driver/sales workers and truck drivers ($37,610)
16) Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers ($69,620)
17) Rail-track laying and maintenance equipment operators ($56,060)
18) Reinforcing iron and rebar workers ($46,850)
19) Riggers ($48,580)
20) First-line supervisors of farming, fishing, and forestry workers ($46,570)

>>15573595
faggot you said PROPERTY not luxuries

>>15575878
In a socialist economy, you cannot purchase ownership of the means of production. That doesn't mean you can't otherwise spend your money freely. After the abolition of slavery in the US, people were forbidden from purchasing ownership of human capital. That did not prevent agriculture and commerce from continuing on and flourishing.

>>15575858
>I don't think it's fair for a few people to be entitled to own beach houses forever
There are taxes on property.
But more generally, to your point: life is not fair. Some people are born more intelligent, better looking, healthier, richer... It's not fair, but it is what it is.
You're never going to equalize all these differences, it's not possible. But you can design a system that keeps people in a society at peace with each other and productive.

>I think everyone should be able to have a beach house vacation at least once in their lives
Humanity seems to have done just fine for millennia without luxury vacations.
And there are very practical problems with trying to manage the access to resources. Who can use it first? For how long? A centrally planned economy is just very inefficient and prone to corruption.

>>15575891
>want to work a trade
>want to be a medical worker
>literally everything is locked behind a paywall
>if you're not wagescucking for a boss, you're fucked up the ass with licensing fees and liability insurance and taxes
WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO APPRENTICESHIPS BROS FUCK THIS GAY EARTH WHY DID WE LET IT GET THIS BAD

>read marx
>he is actually completely unlike how both leftists and rightists describe him
huh

>>15575891
You can shove your statistics that disregard all kinds of mental danger and exhaustion that come with higher level work up your ass. You couldn't mentally handle doing those high paying jobs I listed and most people couldn't, which is why they're high paying.

>>15575985
>FORGET ABOUT YOUR FACTS, WHAT ABOUT MY FEE-FEES?
>DYING IN AN INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IS EASIER THAN STRESSING OVER A POSSIBLE PROLE UPRISING ALL DAY!

>>15576020
Brainlet. Stay in your factory, monkey boy.

>>15575935
>In a socialist economy,
xD

>>15576020
Not him, but yes, those jobs are indeed easier. I'll cut down your stupid trees if you pay me $100k. But people with no regard for safety do it for cheap, that's why the salaries are low.

People also risk a lot of money to get a better education or to buy a company, equipment... there's more than just immediate physical danger.

ITT: faggots who would never want to live in a place like Cuba, yet praise and defend socialism in a chinese anime board.

>>15572956
some people never grow up mentally past 14 though

>>15576100
Sure thing, Chinaboo.

>>15575778
So how much do I have to pay to use the land? And how much do I have to pay the construction workers, and is that money also distributed equally?

>>15576135
Is funny because neither Cuba, China or North Korea can use 4chan.

>>15575771
>He thinks a CEO owns the means of productions.

>>15576241
Anyone with capital owns a portion of it.

>>15576165
>So how much do I have to pay to use the land?
Since the building is physically attached to the land, you bid on the exclusive right to use the two as one package. You set the price by being the highest bidder. The portion of the price corresponding to the land value is distributed to all citizens equally.

>And how much do I have to pay the construction workers,
The remainder is paid to the construction team.

>and is that money also distributed equally?
No, it is generally distributed according to contribution, or however the working members of the organization have agreed among themselves to divvy things up.

>>15576057
>I HAVE TO FILL MY PAPERS AGAIN TODAY WAAH
>I HAVE TO CALL GOLDSTEIN TOO OH NOOO
>IF I BUY THOSES STOCKS I COULD LOSE SOME MONEY I BETTER GO DESTRESS ON MY YACHT

>>15576256
You sound like someone whose brain melts whenever numbers greater than four decimals appear in front of you.

>>15576246
Most CEOs are hired guns. Adding up the equity stakes of all Fortune 500 non-founder CEOs wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. They're still overpaid, of course. But in general they are mere instruments of capital.

>>15576286
>t. proud six sigma black belt

>>15574405
>>15574539
>Perhaps you will point to the Paris Commune; but apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be. With a small amount of sound common sense, however, they could have reached a compromise with Versailles useful to the whole mass of the people -- the only thing that could be reached at the time. The appropriation of the Bank of France alone would have been enough to dissolve all the pretensions of the Versailles people in terror, etc., etc.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_02_22.htm

>>15575670
this

>>15575670
>>15576423
This tends to happen with figures whose notoriety is more than a million times greater than their readership.

>>15576100
Economic sanctions really fuck up a country, good point comrad

>>15572956
>free
>paid
you literally don't even need to read marx to see the contradiction in your strawman of him

>>15575985
>They make a lot of money so their job must be really hard

Being a CEO is stressful, sure, and it does take someone with a decently capable mind to do it, but it's not some Herculean fucking effort. If the rewards of being part of the upper class weren't astronomically higher than the risks, then why do you think people are fighting tooth and nail to reach those positions?

>>15576289
You talk big for someone who doesn't have any sort of idea how to run a nation and keep its workers motivated, as evidenced by the "theory" presented in this thread.

>>15576818
Are you drunk?

>>15576031
>Death is nothing compared to the stress of composing this poignant press release supporting Black Lives Matter!
Fuck off, you namby-pamby corporate poltroon.

>>15576907
If founding and running a multi-trillion dollar corporation is so easy, why aren't you doing it?

>>15576952
>If founding and running a multi-trillion dollar corporation is so easy,
It's certainly much easier to 'found' a company when you have inherited the capital to put at "risk". Of course, I never claimed management of large organizations was easy.

>why aren't you doing it?
Who's to say I'm not? After all: when you're rich, they let you do it.

>>15577017
>It's certainly much easier to 'found' a company when you have inherited the capital to put at "risk".
Okay, so do it.

>Of course, I never claimed management of large organizations was easy.
But you did claim it was easier than being a truck driver, didn't you?

>Who's to say I'm not?
You wouldn't be on here then.

>>15577055
>when you have inherited the capital t
>Okay, so do it.
I am very pro-capitalism but you're an idiot. It is completely unfair the way wealth is passed down, it is just still better than communism.

>>15576952
Inherit me an emerald mine and a few million dollars and i will do it over being a code monkey no problem.

>>15577066
What's unfair about parents/grandparents working their butts off to provide their future lineage an inheritance? Only in rare cases is it "unfair" like the people who actually came across gold when they moved out west, but even then, gold was valued and if you found it... well you were appreciated.

>>15577071
You can do it yourself since it's so easy bro.

>>15577110
>What's unfair about parents/grandparents working their butts off to provide their future lineage an inheritance?
The people "working their butts off" in dangerous jobs tend to be focused on putting food on the table. Passing along some kind of luxurious inheritance is the last thing on their minds.

>>15577110
lol this board is official trash, u r welcome cheers drink more beers #bitcoinvschainlink

Marxism does not work.

Socialism does not work.

Communism does not work.

Capitalism works.

>>15577272
>Passing along some kind of luxurious inheritance is the last thing on their minds.
Not anyone's problem but theirs and their children's. They could stop working those jobs and strive to work in different jobs, or save up and find other ways to make money. Or they could, you know, live with the knowledge that they were not born in the right place at the right time in the right family, and enjoy their time on earth as is, without getting all butthurt and envious about it.

>>15577354
>They could stop working those jobs
The idea that everyone could simply "stop working all those shitty dangerous jobs" and everything would be okay may be the dumbest idea I've ever heard articulated on 4chan. Congrats.

>>15577424
There are other jobs and ways to make money or leave an inheritance. If they can't access or figure any of them out, then they should learn their place in society, which is currently to be at the bottom.

Your whole argument is a piece of juvenile moralism and here's why:

1. The inheritance "problem" that you're talking about goes back many thousands of years, when the tribe that moved to the right place at the right time made certain "discoveries" like fire and agriculture first, and then, because of this, left an inheritance to future generations which enabled them to far surpass other tribes due to their superior means. From this, civilization grew, and everyone outside of it became known as barbarians. Do you think that tribe was at all concerned with your faggot "fairness" horseshit when they "discovered" these things first simply due to being at the right place at the right time? Do you think they just shared their resources with the other tribes on account of this? Perhaps the very first tribe did, and you can guess what happened next... they were FUCKING MURDERED, because back then, there was no slave morality, and it was thoroughly understood, due to everyone living out in the elements, that nature did not give a flying fuck about your feelings.

2. Two words: natural selection, which has more cases of species surviving simply for being in the right place at the right time than other types of cases. This is how the animal kingdom, and all life, simply works. There is no such thing as your "fairness" fantasy in it: if a group stumbles across something first which ensures their survival and triumph over other groups, that group would be FUCKING STUPID not to take it for themselves. All's fair in love and war. You'd do it too if you found it first, and you didn't, and you're whining now precisely because that desire in you to dominate others is still there.

Good thread. Glad we can all finally put to rest the absurd hoax that rightwingers/capitalists/Republicans/etc. have any interest in the promoting the well-being of blue-collar workers, or white-collar workers, or anyone at all who works for a paycheck, or indeed citizens in general.

>>15575962
weird

>>15577500
Read a book, then have sex.

>>15577500
Kill yourself.

>>15577293
>the third world doesn't exist

>>15577567
The third world is shit, not my metric for success desu

>>15577496
>t. talentless cocksucking corporate capitalcuck who thinks he's better than -- and indeed a "hot shit" relative to:
>Loggers, Fishers, Sailors, Pilots, Pavers, Excavators, Drillers, Transporters, Roofers, Machinists, Woodworkers, Septic tank servicers, Garbagemen, Steelworkers, Truck drivers, Farmers, Ranchers, Rail-track Layers, Rebar Workers, Riggers, etc.
>In sum, this entitled low-tone momma's boy, according to whom shuffling papers around like a faggot is more important than actually working...
>...proudly proclaims...
>"There are other jobs and ways to make money or leave an inheritance. If they can't access or figure any of them out, then they should learn their place in society, which is currently to be at the bottom."
Bravo. Now go clean your own toilet, Übermensch. The serfs have all been genocided, as instructed.

>>15577596
You could have conceded defeat gracefully, but instead you chose to write this garbage that has no substance in it besides your obvious frustration.

>>15577641
Not an argument.

>>15577655
You didn't provide one either, dipshit.

>>15577661
You decided to abandon rational discourse and resort to shitposting looooong before I did, my dude. Anyway, have a good one.

>>15577674
Just because you're not intelligent enough to follow my arguments doesn't mean I didn't provide any or that they weren't rational, pleb.

>>15576020
>WHAAAAAA I DON'T WANT TO DIE MAKING MONEY TO SUPPORT MY FAMILY I WANT TO DIE SHITTING AND CRYING IN A HOSPITAL BED
>WHAAAA IT'S NOT FAIR, WHY DO THESE CEO'S THINK THEY HAVE IT SO BAD WORKING 10 HOUR DAYS AND NEVER SEEING THEIR FAMILIES! THEY GET TO SHIT THEMSELVES AND DIE IN THE HOSPITAL AND I DON'T!

C*pitalists always embarrass themselves in these threads.

>>15577795
Cry more about your granpappy being a poor dumb bastard.

>>15577752
Word! So true. It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cr0nP3k_p4

>>15577809
Can you trace ALL your ancestors back before 1500? No cheating, or relying on 'crowd-sourced' ancestry.com bullshit "genealogies". Actual legit published Keats-Rohan-tier prosopography?

>>15577809
If you work hard enough you can be a billionaire too :) I believe in you anon :)

>>15577896
No. What's your point?

>>15577899
People don't just work hard to become billionaires. They work smartly, and also aggressively, successfully seizing opportunities when given to them and reaping the rewards.

>>15577939
Lol, you have to be a troll. Nobody is that retarded.

>>15573073
>2. Government is necessary to arrest ne'er-do-wells like you
The government protects them.

>>15577948
So how do people become billionaires, in your view?

>>15577795
A fine trade since commies always embarrass themselves in real life.

>>15577986
Via ownership of the means of production. Nobody becomes a billionaire through hard work. And yes, of course human capacities differ -- by ten times, one hundred times, even a thousand times. That obviously doesn't justify one out of a billion people owning and controlling more than half of global wealth.

>>15578076
>Via ownership of the means of production.
And how did they come to own it?

>Nobody becomes a billionaire through hard work.
Not just hard work, no. I specified what other things are involved. People weren't just born billionaires one day, because money didn't always exist; they became billionaires through conscious and difficult effort on their part or their family's. It's easier to lose your money than to maintain or grow it, even today.

>>15575985
No offense but you sound like a tranny:

>Because it causes them distress to the point of upwards 41% of them attempt suicide at some point or another.

If you off yourself, that's on you cocksucker. Suck it up, or quickly shuffle off this mortal coil. Take care.

Just a heads up: some capitalist faggot tranny just went hog wild in order to try to slide all serious economic discussions off the front page. In any case... carry on.

>>15572956
just dont let him eat any more babies
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m6WnLEvbZHI

>>15577500
What's the point of creating a category of humans called "workers"?
Who gives a shit if you "work" (every single human works at least some of the time), what ultimately matters is how much value you provide.

>>15578841
>What's the point of creating a category of humans called "workers"?
It's created for them. People who work and thereby collect a paycheck for their efforts are distinguished from the idle trust-fund babies who refuse to work and only spend.

>Who gives a shit if you "work"
Lol.

>every single human works at least some of the time
Only if you define "work" as playing golf or otherwise dicking around.

>what ultimately matters is how much value you provide.
Indeed. Eliminate your daddy's money and we'll see what "meritocracy" really means.

>>15578870
>People who work and thereby collect a paycheck for their efforts are distinguished from the idle trust-fund babies who refuse to work and only spend.
What's the point of this distinction, though? Especially because such trust-fund babies are extremely rare. You're operating on a strawman right from the start.

>>every single human works at least some of the time
>Only if you define "work" as playing golf or otherwise dicking around.
No, work is everything that you need to do to live, including buying groceries, preparing food, hygiene... 99.999% of people do that themselves, so they're all "workers".

>Eliminate your daddy's money and we'll see what "meritocracy" really means.
It means that if you solve hard problems you deserve a bigger reward than someone who sweeps the street or packs stuff at a warehouse. And he should be able to pass on the reward, otherwise you have a world with poor incentives that would suck more.

>>15578931
>Especially because such trust-fund babies are extremely rare.
That's the fucking point. The means of production are owned by a small handful of such "rare" individuals.

what a pathetic thread. nobody here has read Marx

>>15574322
senpai

>>15579004
It's very important to the ruling class that his ideas be loudly lampooned. Hence the OP and the stridently retarded comments sprinkled within this thread hoping to discredit the very idea of allowing a working person to earn what he keeps.

>>15578405
Was Hitler a tranny because he killed himself?

>>15578983
The "means of production" are not OWNED by any particular interest group. The machine is far too complex for any group to own it. You're assigning an absurdly small group of people an absurdly large amount of power because you don't really know all the working nuances behind the economy and lack the perception to fill in those blanks.

Rather, everyone with capital owns a portion of it in proportion to their capital wealth, since you are free to invest any capital you own as you want, and there are near-endless ways to obtain more capital so long as your parents didn't string you up with huge debts and settle you down in bumfuck nowhere with no knowledge of how the world works. If that's your situation, it's not the fault of trust-fund kids, but of your ignorant parents.

>see thread yesterday with only 10 replies
>assume nobody else will take the bait
>250+ replies today
bros......:

>>15572971
through the lumpenproletariate.

>>15580764
>pebbleballisticifation.yu

>>15572956
I got asked once at school if i had a time machine what historical person would i kill
everyone said hitler
but i said marx
i got kicked off of school and i don't have a degree now i have to start all over fuck you marx