/lit/ - Literature

Marx is irrelevant.

>>17048723
>Marx is more relevant than ever and I can't understand why

>>17048768
Whatever helps you sleep at night.

what the tldr of marax then

>>17048806
The man who works deserves the profit.

>>17048719
Useful image thanks anon. I read excerpts of Capital before but maybe I should read it all again. I'll check and see if this is accurate when I do.

>>17048817
so i should top paying taxes?

>>17048817
>deserves
Moralizing isn't a part of Marxism

>>17048827
Sure.
>>17048830
The man who works is entitled to the full value of the product that his labor went toward creating.

>>17048723
you will eat the bugs and like it bigot... oh be sure to blame black people for that :)

>>17048723
based

>>17048849
kek marx is passionately hated in the countries where communism has been implemented, most notably Eastern Europe and Latin America.

>>17048840
What would marx say to common responses like "the owner paid for the equipment" etc etc.
Did he have any thoughts about interest and usury? I started reading communist manifesto a while ago but didn't have the interest to finish it.

>>17048871
[citation needed]
here's a study that shows former soviet states have a higher opinion of the soviet union than americans do of their president

>>17048817
Who determines the work?

>>17048896
the work is the surplus value derived from labour

>>17048903
That doesn't answer my question. Who decides what work is to be done and by when it should be accomplished?

>>17048886
>boomers pine for the good old days
news at 11

>>17048886
based eastern European zoomers and millenials, cringe boomers

>>17048886
based eastern european zoomer getting nationalist pilled with neo Nazi groups on the rise, cringe nooooo you must never forget the 6 gorillion!!! boomers

>>17048849
>muh great reset conspiracy
klaus schwab is just some think tank economics writer who speculates on the future. he doesnt actually control governments.

>>17048872
He would likely say that the owner has made more than an adequate return on his equipment, that the equipment was effectively stolen from the original workers who built it. He would ponder if the workers should pool their resources and buy their own, but would lament that that only feeds the owner and exploiter of the machine producers labor and that the Capitalist class could use political power and monopolization to doom a cooperative enterprise, finally concluding that the owning class must be done away with as much as possibld.
>thoughts about interest and usury?
Probably over 500 pages of thoughts about such. Do you have a more specific question?
>communist manifesto
Honestly overrated and a poor intro to Marx. It was written hurriedly for the express purpose of awakening workers to the ideas of Stalins regime. It hardly encapsulates Marxism. I might suggest The Meaninf of Marxism by Paul D'Amato or How Marxism Works by Harman which you can read for free here https://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1979/marxism/index.html

>>17048719
I hereby retract "grokked" from the english language

>>17048896
Other guy wasnt me. The workers decide what work is to be done according to Marx. They decide when, where, how, and what to produce.

As an example, let's look at the GM plants of the rust belt. They were closed by the decision of shareholders and "board members" these people of course have never stepped foot in the factories they decided to shutter. They moved production to China. Do you think the workers would have decided to do so? Or would they have diversified?

The choice right now is made by shareholders in aggreement with the board of directors and passed down to the CEO then to the managers. According to Marxists if companies need a decision making position, it should be voted forband decided by the workers who does that and how much authority they have.

>>17048719
Sounds like a bunch of commie gobledigook

>>17048937
Imagine thinking getting sucked into the neolib global economy is "nationalist" and "based". Nazis are such farm animals.

>>17048985
No need, it isn't an English word.

>>17048988
Hell yeah I heard a couple of years back some guys in Russia almost abolished the commodity form

>>17048986
I should add here that thousands of workers lost their livelihood, and that favtories like these can be retooled easily to produce ANYTHING which is fucking incredible.
Secondly, I should note that America already has many "communist enterprises" in the form of worker co-operatives which aren't strictly communist because they still compete within a Capitalist market, but who do in fact provide America with 25% of it's electricity and produce, among other things. These cooperatives have been shown to be more recession proof, better for workers in wages and benefits, AND outperform and out produce traditional corporations as they don't rely on masive managerial networks.

>>17048997
My cursory google search informed me otherwise but okay ill take your word for it

>>17048986
Thank you for the explanation. So it's more or less what I suspected. Marx imagines that the workers will determine their own work in his economic system. If applied to the military, this would be like the soldiers waging their own wars.

So my next question is, how the hell did anyone ever take him seriously?

>>17048909
>>17048921
>>17048937
kek why do reactionaries hate statistics and facts

>>17048906
I have asked this question so many times on here and the results are always hilarious. Sometimes they post some literature about this and the literature is always just as stupid as their own half-hearted attempts.

If you press them enough to come up explicit structures it literally always ends up reinventing a state, and forcing workers into roles rather than letting them choose what they want, but they try very hard to describe it in other terms.

Grug want fish
Grug get fish
Grug own fish
Simple as

>>17049029
if grug has excess fish, he gives the excess to those that have no fish or no means to get fish so they dont starve.

>>17049014
>If applied to the military, this would be like the soldiers waging their own wars.
Sort of, of course, they would likely appoint a command and establish a structure using democracy and most importantly merit and expertise.
>how the hell did anyone ever take him seriously?
Well, a man writes over 5000 pages of scathing critique of Capitalism, and then his ideas spread further and faster than even Christianity, including the realization of several revolutions and the establishment of countries that for a while competed with Industrial Capitalism at its peak of growth, and for some reason, people begin to take it quite seriously.

>>17049038
Schizophrenic

>>17048988
putting words in my mouth. Neo Nazis don't like capitalists, but the only thing they despise more than a capitalist is a communist, faggots, jews, and niggers. leftist movements are dying while right wing ones are gaining

>>17048723
What Marx describes as 'capitalism' is actually human society in general. Marx is relevant and will remain relevant forever as long as you ignore his commie fantasies.

>>17049038
grug has no loyalty to retard who can't fish
grug only has loyalty to his wife and kids

>>17049046
>trump lost
>le pen lost
>afd lost
>bannon going to prison

>>17049046
>Nazis don't like capitalists
What is the Krupp family who is IG Farben
What is the board of fasces and corporations

>>17049046
I'm pointing out that the Eastern Bloc is literally the only thing that prevented your absorption into NATO's hegemony. All these larping nazis and tradcaths and fascists are so addicted to ideology they can't comprehend basic power politics.

>>17048988
Neoliberalism has always been Fascisms stronger more intelligent brother.

>>17049004
What are the names of those co-ops? Genuinely curious

>>17049014
>Locke imagines that property-owning Individuals will determine their own laws in his social contract system. If applied to the military, this would be like a propertied merchant class waging their own wars.

>So my next question is, how the hell did anyone ever take him seriously?

>>17049038
Anon only good people should do good things because for them it isn't forced, only the good people possess the good personality traits. Forcing bad people to act good will only proliferate bad personality traits amongst the broader population. You need nature to promote altruism or it has no obligation to increase it's representation.

>>17049004
>These cooperatives have been shown to be more recession proof, better for workers in wages and benefits, AND outperform and out produce traditional corporations as they don't rely on masive managerial networks.
But how do we know that they weren't only successful because they had capitalist competitors driving them to work? If the entire world operated in this fashion and there were no capitalist businesses left, what incentive would there be left to work towards things beyond satisfying immediate necessities for themselves?

>>17049041
>Well, a man writes over 5000 pages of scathing critique of Capitalism, and then his ideas spread further and faster than even Christianity, including the realization of several revolutions and the establishment of countries that for a while competed with Industrial Capitalism at its peak of growth, and for some reason, people begin to take it quite seriously.
So they were too overwhelmed by how much he wrote and the jargon to notice how nonsensical it is? Imagine asking soldiers to form their own armies and wage their own wars, to decide on what wars are even worth waging... it makes no sense.

>>17049056
trump lost to the globalists class that wants to end protectionist trade policy and flood america with more laborers so i guess the capitalists are winning idk

>>17049056
terrible, I hate trump. He condemned Neo Nazis instead of supporting them, not to mention he shills for israel

>>17049068
define Neoliberalism

>>17049068
Neolibs are certainly much more effective anti-communists, but they don't share any of the fascists' adolescent dispositions, which makes them natural enemies. Fortunately the fascists worshiping a strong Daddy Figure makes them literally incapable of governing, so they'll never defeat the libs.

>>17049075
>If the entire world operated in this fashion and there were no capitalist businesses left, what incentive would there be left to work towards things beyond satisfying immediate necessities for themselves?

Is that what capitalist “competition” (read: obstacle in the way of eventually establishing a monopoly) really does though? Does the profit motive provide us with perfect products, or does it end up mass producing addicting substances and glitchy, cheap items that break all the time?

>>17049063
>points out grifters
nice one man

>>17049094
you haven't even read the most basic Fascist text have you, and you don't know anything about the economic policies of Italy or Nazi Germany either I'm guessing

>>17049077
you dont give a shit about labor except when you can use this talking point against mexicans. you vote for a party that keeps cutting taxes for the rich while wealth inequality grows and wages stagnate. a party against healthcare for workers. a party that openly cares more about money than lives. a party that would rather let people die of covid than give people stimulus checks. real pro worker huh?

>>17049070
There are many. Here's a list of the top 100 I found. https://www.thenews.coop/100093/sector/retail/list-top-100-co-ops-usa-released/

>>17049103
Nazi Germany pushed for privatization, retained private property, and colluded with industrialists. They abolished unions and workers were turned into slaves for a war machine. They were not socialist in any sense. They were a state capitalist with extreme nationalism,militarism, imperialism, and racism

>>17049103
>economic policies of Italy or Nazi Germany
this! national SOCIALISM? hellooo??

>>17049067
whatever makes you sleep at night knowing ultranationalist movements are gaining momentum all throughout europe while leftist movements are dying due to the destabilization of the ME caused by the U.S. and Israel which has flooded countries with brown and black pedophiles

>>17049108
Less than one in a thousand people have died from Covid in the US, and it was mostly old, fat, or sick people. The lockdowns have been a fucking disaster economically and in a dozen other ways.

Welfare does not help anybody except the truly disabled, jobs help them. And taxes affect the middle class too, and immigration hurts every worker.

>>17049126
>ultranationalist movements are gaining momentum all throughout europe
kek
>>17049133
immigration is based as fuck, i sincerely hope paco takes food off brendan's table

>>17049103
nazi germany was not socialist, it favored national bourgeoise interests. they had some welfare programs (not even wealth distribution but vacation packages and an iou for a car), thats not socialism

>>17049096
>Is that what capitalist “competition” (read: obstacle in the way of eventually establishing a monopoly) really does though?
Nice dodge. What incentive would be left for the hard work necessary to accomplish something beyond one's immediate necessities in Marx's proposed system? Can you answer that? Capitalism at the very least has the means to support the development of new things through competition and private ownership.

>>17049075
>But how do we know that they weren't only successful because they had capitalist competitors driving them to work? I
I'm concerned, do you think that demand for a product would DECREASE without Capitalist exploitation and competition? Goods and services are necessary to society. Can you clarify your question. I will attempt to answer more earnestly.
>Imagine asking soldiers to form their own armies and wage their own wars, to decide on what wars are even worth waging...
I'm not sure you understand much of what I've been referring to. I never described what the government would look like, only what you asked, which was how work would be organized. The end goal of communism is a stateless society, Marx wasnt nearly such an Utopian though, he only said that after a worker revolution, then they can form the government that they feel best protects the interests of all. Which would probably require the working class to fund a military and appoint leaders who were trusted to take care of their interests. If they didnt, they would have an extremely unified class of people who would exert pressure.

I'm trying to be genuine, but I feel like you're strawmanning awfully hard.

>>17049118
I know they were not Socialist, socialism is retarded, they were capitalism with sensible restrictions and giant government projects, much like the New Deal, as well as monetary incentives and interest-free loans for families.

>>17049142
kek this retard still doesn't understand incentives beyond coercive wage labor lmfao
>>17049146
>with sensible restrictions and giant government projects
[citation needed]

>>17049136
>i sincerely hope paco takes food off brendan's table
Why? Also the general effect of Paco moving is not taking Brendan's food, it's just less food being produced. California now has the lowest quality of life in the union.

imagine looking at the world today and coming to the conclusion that the solution is even more privatization

fascists and neoliberals are dumb as fuck

Commies and nazis are always seething poorfags

>>17049144
Did Marx consider that we are bound by reality

>>17049136
cope

>>17049157
Hey if we become meek enough indeed we will have literally no choice left but to cooperate with each other as if we were an ant hill so I mean you know if you want to be nearly impotent then go for it

>>17048886
Seems kind of misleading. The decade after the dissolution of the Soviet Union put all those countries in shambles, so short term, and from a historical standpoint, it was a bad thing that happened. The way the question is worded makes it unclear if one is supposed to think of the immediate consequences or the present day

>>17049156
>Also the general effect of Paco moving is not taking Brendan's food, it's just less food being produced
gonna need a source
>California now has the lowest quality of life in the union.
maybe for poorfags

>>17049083
Authoritarian state with loose business regulations and low corporate taxes. For the short answer.
>>17049094
I agree, that dictatorship is increasingly unlikely, though, I would say that Fascism has had some interesting thinkers and movements. Mussolini in particular intrigues me and reading Gentile really sharpened my knowledge of Socialism in general. What we leftists sometimes ignore is that to win against Liberal Capitalism will absolutely require a strong state and a lot of blood. Fascism is merely a different more tenous path to socialism. I don't believe in man singular, only mankind, so I still prefed democracy. We just have to free people from the instruments of control and foster true knowledge. No easy feat, and I don't claim to have all the answers, nor do I claim supremacy of thought. I only know my own thoughts and my own worldview.

>>17048886
That doesnt say anything American politics is a television show

>>17049152
autobahn vrroom vrroom

But seriously the Nazi party made sure the workers were employed either by corporations or for the state, and it made many government-funded housing developments, especially for families. Economists are still blithering about the 'strangeness' of the Nazi economic miracle(or trying to deny it happened) because they aren't even allowed to mention central banking usury or the productive union between capitalism and government regulation in service of the people.

>>17049176
>What we leftists sometimes ignore is that to win against Liberal Capitalism will absolutely require a strong state and a lot of blood.
this is all tankies talk about

>>17048872
Ownership over the means of production doesn't actually create any value (in the sense that those means are inert inert labor uses those means produces something). Instead, it permits those with ownership over the means to extract value from laborers by alienating them in various ways (you lose ownership over your labor; what you make doesn't belong to you; you are put in competition with your fellow man; you no longer feel at home at labor, only in leisure). In the rational process of man expanding his freedom, ownership over the means of production (i.e. private property) will be abolished in favor of worker ownership. This is a dialectical process which happens through history as the contradictions within each historical stage manufactures and exacerbate class struggle.
>>17048961
bro read more Marx

>>17049160
Yes, his critique of Capitalism was one of scientific materialism.

>be subjected to the will of 1 idiot
Or
>be subjected to the will of 100 million idiots

Consider choice fatigue and personal happiness and choose wisely

>>17049175
>>California now has the lowest quality of life in the union.
>maybe for poorfags
Quality of life is measured by average, a concept you guys seem to really not grasp. Most of those poorfags by the way are the Pacos, they are just recreating Latin America in Socal.

I made this thread as a throwaway for the express purpose of winning an argument in another thread, by bumping the latter to the bottom of the catalogue as quickly as possible. I'm amused that this thread has so quickly amassed almost 100 replies. -OP

>>17048961
>communist manifesto
>written hurriedly for the express purpose of awakening workers to the ideas of Stalins regime
wut

>>17049188
That's true, but Tankies are ideologues in their own right, with their Vanguard parties and strict adherence to totalitarianism. We could organize a revolution horizontally, but it would be massively difficult. I'm a Libertarian Socialist at heart, but naivety has no place in discussion of revolution.

>>17049191
I guess he is just a little too far in the past to have properly applied it

>>17049176
>What we leftists sometimes ignore is that to win... will absolutely require a strong state
It's like you guys are parodying yourselves. Whenever you start to make actual plans you reinvent Thomas Hobbes

>>17049184
brutal cope
>>17049189
lmfao read a book nazi, hitler privatized national industry like railroads and energy
>>17049199
don't care poorfag i don't live in downtown la with the rest of you rodents if paco wants to pick orange and get paid illegally who am i to stop him? fuck america

>>17048961
>>17049190
Thank you

>>17048719
What the hell does grokk even mean

Thesis: Socialism
Antithesis: Fascism
Synthesis: Nazbol GANG

>>17049144
>I'm concerned, do you think that demand for a product would DECREASE without Capitalist exploitation and competition? Goods and services are necessary to society. Can you clarify your question.
Production would overall decrease under Marx's proposed system is what I'm saying. If all workers globally were determining their own work, and the only ones capable of pressuring them into working harder is other workers simply for their own amusement, why wouldn't this situation devolve into a power struggle where groups formed and bullied people into accepting shorter work weeks and less challenging work, and how would this not decrease production across the board?

Alternatively, if it truly was the people's demands pressuring them, then what guarantees that the system won't make things WORSE on workers? Can you trust people to be less "exploitative" than the company owners driven by profits?

>I never described what the government would look like, only what you asked, which was how work would be organized.
I never mentioned the government. You said workers would determine their own work and when tasks would be accomplished by. Where does government come in? Although, you're basically saying that the people will govern themselves, which I'd criticize in the same manner as above.

>The end goal of communism is a stateless society
If there is no central command, what makes it a military? Likewise, if there is no state, then what still makes it a society?

>>17049212
Well it's true. Americans don't have a valid opinion of their politics. It is just a show, they cannot observe it objectively.

>>17049206
>revolution
You can buy marx at barnes and noble lmao, what a joke

>>17049190
Based good sir. I'm still learning. Though, I intentionally tried to make what I said coherent and accesible to someone unfamilar with dialectic materialism and marxian analysis and economics in general.

>>17048886

Stockholm Syndrome + deep misunderstanding of politics. Since Communism purports to aim for statelessness, it is deeply ironic that its accustomed adult victims pine for a specifif state. Against this, American disapproval for the president in a genuinely free society (we use the phrase without giggling, and uniroincally) is an indication of freedom.

>>17049108
idc about the republican party but I got a pretty sick tax break with the double standard deduction and I work shit retail. And yes I think we should stop incentivizing large corps to fill whitecollar jobs with h1bs and so that american workers can take those jobs instead and afford to raise families (i realize sometimes neo-marxists conflate the "nuclear family" with "colonialism" idk lol) Also I think the risks from covid are overstated and even though it could be serious for some people, small businesses and their customers should be free to take that risk just like gay men are free to rim each other and eat cum and risk stds. Covid shtdowns are actually nuking small business and allowing big boys like amazon to expand marketshare so that would probably have negative impact on our inequality problem. How old are you like 19?

>>17049206
how is it any more naive than believing a massively empowered state will naturally relinquish power and wither away?

>>17049228

I want to muss up this cute boy's hair!

>>17049212
Yes Hitler privatized some things, and he also created government projects. Today you learned the concept of nuance.

>>17049152
>incentives beyond coercive wage labor
There's plenty, but they always come from people other than the workers themselves. If workers are providing themselves their own incentives, it's like providing yourself with the incentive to suffer. People would slowly stop doing this altogether, until everything collapsed, which is what only self-absorbed degenerates would want to happen.

>>17049212
>don't care poorfag i don't live in downtown la with the rest of you rodents if paco wants to pick orange and get paid illegally who am i to stop him? fuck america
the Prog Id in its full antiglory

nazism is dead as shit. leftism has more momentum. class struggle isgaining. nazis get their shit kicked in by antifa/blm

>>17049238
>small businesses and their customers should be free to take that risk
yeah and if workers don't want to get covid they can just find a better job. and if they can't find a job that won't expose them to covid, they can starve to death while holding out for something better.
>Covid shtdowns are actually nuking small business and allowing big boys like amazon to expand marketshare
it's not the covid shutdowns that are doing that, it's capitalism

>>17049251
you mad cause petit bougie new money vote in their class interest but your revolution can't happen without us.. checkmate

>>17049048>>17049190
>>17049229

>>What Marx describes as 'capitalism' is actually human society in general.
i love how atheists cant stop thinking about money and work, to the point that they history is 100% dependent on those

The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch.
—Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Scientific and Utopian (1880)

yes it reduces people 'life to producing and trading goods

>>17049223
>Production would overall decrease under Marx's proposed system is what I'm saying.
Yes. Absolutely. We need only produce what can be used. There are many complex ways of doing this, but economic planning not unlike American agriculture seems to be a tedious but effective method. If the entire world was Marxist worker controlled then, I would certainly hope the workers give themselves shorter hours. As I said, a need only be met, Earth is straining at our immoral system of mass overproduction as is.
>Alternatively, if it truly was the people's demands pressuring them, then what guarantees that the system won't make things WORSE on workers?
Marxism requires a working class that is unified. If the governing body they select becomes exploitive, they simply must use the pressure of their labor and their actual physical force in numbers to perform the neccessary steps for fixing what's broken.
>If there is no central command, what makes it a military?
Large numbers of people with weaponry. Lol
>Likewise, if there is no state, then what still makes it a society?
Large numbers of people working together to improve the lives of all.

Keep in mind that I said this was overly Utopian and not Marx's position. Of course if you like to ponder the Anarcho-communist approach I would offer Murray Bookchin as my favorite theorist of that ideology. He would stop calling it a society and call it an Ecology of Fredom.

>>17049238
>>17049260
It's not capitalism nuking small businesses, but people themselves, who have deemed Amazon a more convenient service than those small businesses. When capitalism is working, it follows the whims of markets, which consist of people, who have all kinds of changing needs and desires.

>>17049260
>>Covid shtdowns are actually nuking small business and allowing big boys like amazon to expand marketshare
>it's not the covid shutdowns that are doing that, it's capitalism
I can imagine almost nothing dumber than this statement, the young to middle-age people who would be making these small businesses have like a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying from covid, if not even less. It is the government preventing them from doing it, it is the covid lockdowns that have taken all the wealth from small businesses and given it to megacorps aligned with banks and gov agencies.

Capitalism is literally just letting these people reopen their fucking businesses. Sure capitalism has problems, Walmart and co are evil fucks, the government should intervene. That doesn't mean the basic form of capitalism, people forming small businesses, needs to end.

"Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man’s work and man’s existence and this alien essence dominates him and he worships it. The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange."

—Karl Marx, The Jewish Qesution

>>17049238
I'm the Marx explainer and this is based lmao.
Though, I would say that Vietnam with a population density 3x that of America routed and stopped Covid and only sufferred 35 deaths total and saw virtually no economic downturn.

>>17049260
>it's not the covid shutdowns that are doing that, it's capitalism
no its logical outcome of covid shutdowns being pushed by disingenuous politicians who are supported by shortsighted leftists who don't think for themselves.

>>17049242
That's the problem isn't it. It would be impossible to revolt without structure, but structure will only lead to "monopolization" of authority. We have examples like Catalonia and Rojava, but look closely, these still have their leaders. The solution to me is ensuring the leaders have the expertise and also that power and structure happens horizontally, that any central lead understands the temporality of his position.

>>17049264
I don't want a revolution, more to the point it's childish to expect some revolution to make your life better. I was just amused by how explicitly you represented the core political aim and cultural disposition of the people that control the US.

I wish socialists would stop moralizing money. Capitalists do it too but differently.

Socialists moralize scarcity, thereby everything becomes permitted due to lack of money. Capitalists moralize surplus, thereby everything becomes permitted due to excess money. Both are wrong, money has no connection to morality whatsoever. But let me be clear, the moralization of money in relation to scarcity bothers me more.

the only reason small businesses lose out to mega corporations like amazon and walmart is because capitalism allows such entities to even exist in the first place

small businesses have been getting crushed by these companies for a long time now, the lockdowns only accelerated their destruction but they didn't cause it

without capitalism this shit wouldn't even be a problem

>>17049272
A bit untoward to claim that Amazon itself didn't cause this though, or Walmart. These places storefronts, warehouses, and factories are heavily subsidized by taxpayers, and to pretend that Amazon doesnt participate in practices that destroy competition is purely fantasy.

Corporations actually write our laws in America. I'm not even exaggerating. They write them. In doing so they've created a monopoly of shareholders. Probably less than 100, all of which protect their own interests over those who would compete with them.

>>17049304
In my experience success is reliant on what one is willing to do and you cannot hurt a person more than convincing them that they ought not feel a fire within them to move mountains

>>17049293
>rs. The solution to me is ensuring the leaders have the expertise
the concept of expertise is decided by power structures
>and also that power and structure happens horizontally,
power is innately hierarchical, this is a contradiction, the very meaning of power is hierarchy
>that any central lead understands the temporality of his position.
this is how democracy already functions and it just incentivizes looting the coffer before your opponent gets in

>>17049313
shut the fuck up retard

>>17049315
t. Slave

>>17049271
>If the entire world was Marxist worker controlled then, I would certainly hope the workers give themselves shorter hours.
What's stopping them from shortening their hours even more, to the point where they don't work at all? Just other people's demands? This goes back to my questions that you didn't answer. How can you guarantee that people's demands won't be harsher than those the company owners? How can you guarantee that workers won't organize and bully people into accepting laziness and incompetence when they no longer have anyone to answer to?

>If the governing body they select becomes exploitive, they simply must use the pressure of their labor and their actual physical force in numbers to perform the neccessary steps for fixing what's broken.
What governing body? You said they determine their own work, and the point is to eventually achieve statelessness. Is the goal here to actually eradicate everyone who thinks differently from worker brutes, so that everyone has the same demands (which would eventually just become the most basic ones, that of food, drugs and sex), and no one ever comes into conflict with one another again?

>Large numbers of people with weaponry. Lol
That's not a military, that's a mob. A military has a hierarchical chain of command. Likewise, a society has a state that governs it.

>Large numbers of people working together to improve the lives of all.
This would only happen once the lives of people the most vicious workers disliked were removed. This "statelessness" and "worker-driven economy" is actually an effort towards creating a mob-driven dictatorship, making it self-absorbed degeneracy.

>>17049314
>hierarchy exists.
Yes, some of which is justified hierarchy. Like a father to a child. A doctor to a patient. No one seeks to abolish the hierarchy of expertise or all power for that matter. Only unjust forms of hierarchy. A policeman over a citizen. An employer over an employee. One citizen over another.
>this is how democracy already functions
Not exactly, I was referring to a very specific situation in the formation of a revolutionary leadership. Our democracy now is very much tied to money. Our media institutions set the boundaries of allowed discourse and mute and shun anything outside of that. Then we choose between two parties with the exact same goal.

>>17049309
It's equally untoward to claim that massive online shopping malls and 2 day free shipping like Amazon provides weren't demands of people. For every bit of exploitation that companies do, the people are exploiting them all the same.

How would Marx deal with a Mongol invasion

Would he finally acknowledge the pulling up of bootstraps?

>>17049318
>>17049315

You're both slaves to different impulses, but the one advocating the protestant work ethic is the superior since that impulse is the one which leads to the objective improvement of civilization, which is now so decadent that its stupid children are disposed not to appreciate what they have.

>>17049349
I'm not saying you SHOULD have a protestant work ethic, I'm just saying it's a crime to take that away from somebody that wishes to be that way.

>>17049337
Whether hierarchy is justified or not according to your schema does not influence whether hierarchy exists. It is amoral

>>17048723
I fucking wish

>>17049353
how does the abolition of capitalism take that away? how does socialism impede someone from choosing to work hard?

>>17049325
>What's stopping them from shortening their hours even more, to the point where they don't work at all?
They require goods and a functioning society to live in. They require compensation.
>How can you guarantee that people's demands won't be harsher than those the company owners?
Because all of the people will have a say in the matter. Lmfao if a majority decides to imperil their livelihood for no reason other than??? Then I suppose they all quit working.
>when they no longer have anyone to answer to?
They have to answer to each other.
>What governing body?
The government.
>eventually achieve statelessness.
This is the end goal of communism, not Marxism. A position I don't hold.
The rest of this section is fairly inane rambling and strawmen. I'm no spokesperson for communism. I will elevate the working class and accept whatever style of government we decide on together.
>A military has a hierarchical chain of command. Likewise, a society has a state that governs it.
Again, you're aegueing against positions that you've imagined. I've spoken that of course people could elect a hierarchy in either scenario. They will have the autonomy and power to do so. The working class knows it's on interests and isn't comprised of children who would throw it away on a whim.
>This would only happen once the lives of people the most vicious workers disliked were removed. This "statelessness" and "worker-driven economy" is actually an effort towards creating a mob-driven dictatorship, making it self-absorbed degeneracy.

It's freedom and democracy. Humanity is capable of working together. Mutual Aid is a part of human nature. Again, I never pretended to champion end stage communism. Only to explain Marxist positions on various things that were asked of me. This entire rant was answered so many replies up. Marx only posited that workers should sieze control of society and then they should determine what the result looks like. Whether it be communism or Liberal Democracy, or the working class votes itself into the slavery of the elite. That's not for one man to decide according to Marx, but for the whole of humanity.

>>17049366
A bunch of reasons a socialist would attempt to deny

>>17049340
Yes, but they aren't informed consumers, they're addictex to convenience and dopamine. It's a complicated issue and certainly the consumer is to blame. Companies also go to great lengths to hide their evil though. Many don't know that six year olds mine cobalt and die for iphones to be produced which are totally unnecessary, yet are 'repackaged' every year with a minor improvement and a whole lot of inflation. If they did, I wonder if it would matter at this point. Then we use this costly concenience to further brainwash ourselves.

Capitalism is absorbing and distorting humanity.

>>17049357
Yes.

>>17049390
gg no re

>>17049410
Well I fear I could go on far beyond character limit. I'll keep it simple, instead of writing 500 pages on the topic. Inorganic structures cannot maintain momentum.

>>17049406
Well then you realize the futility of all this. Machiavelli and of all people fucking Ted Kaczynski in the Anti-Tech Revolution are the only people i have seen explicitly state this fact, that the way power flows through various systems has literally NOTHING to do with morality.

>>17049427
What's weird is that I never claimed otherwise? You pullin a fast one? Are you saying since hierarchy has no inherent morality, that we should support all hierarchies? Or that we should scrutinize them to see if they have any negative side effects and abolish the ones that do. Would you consided slavery a hierarchy? If you're enslaved, do you feel like hierarchy is amoral? Or is this nit hierarchy but something worse and less ambiguous.

>>17049453
Not him but slavery and marriage are historically quite similar and indeed primitive designs of social reform, slaves had what they needed and for marriage when a husband died the woman was married to a relative which is one reason why men had multiple wives. This is for social stability. There are absolutely designs for slavery that were moral, and marriage was hard to distinguish from those designs of slavery.

>>17049453
Should and are have nothing to do with each other, not even a little bit

>>17049384
>They require goods and a functioning society to live in. They require compensation.
So the workers don't really determine their own work, in other words.

>Because all of the people will have a say in the matter.
And what about the other question? Interesting that you didn't answer that one.

>They have to answer to each other.
Translation: they have to answer to the loudest and most vicious among them. Mob rule.

>I've spoken that of course people could elect a hierarchy in either scenario. They will have the autonomy and power to do so. The working class knows it's on interests and isn't comprised of children who would throw it away on a whim.
The only hierarchy that will be elected in this scenario is that of mob rule. There won't be any autonomy and power to do anything besides this when the workers are only doing work because of people's demands and all people are workers.

>Marx only posited that workers should sieze control of society and then they should determine what the result looks like.
And like I said, many posts up, this is like having soldiers wage their own wars. It's backwards retardation. Workers working for themselves is a recipe for self-absorbed degeneracy.

this thread made me realize that i have grokked marx, and he was a midwit. albeit one those was very prolific and a good communicator about his chosen topic area.
For people who have a good sense of justice, reading marx is entirely unnecessary for identifying inequities creating positive change in the world.

>>17049476
I can imagine forms of slavery that are moral. They are highly voluntary though. It brings this discussion to a difficult philosophical realm. What is human life worth? And moreover what worth is there living if you are robbed of your choice and free will? Certainly those types of "hierarchies" have existed. I wouldn't consider them justified. I wouldn't consider them hierarchies. I would consider them immoral servitude and domination.
>>17049487
Lol

>>17049491
try to make your concept of what should exist into what does exist, and then try to 'lol'

>>17049491
Free will doesn't exist but we are in a position where it is useful to feel as if it is. That should be clarified. Also, given certain circumstances these are indeed hierarchies and necessary for the stability of the broader population. There are quite a lot of complex symbiotic relationships even in the animal kingdom.

>>17049402
Quality of life improvements require sacrifice. Some child laborers aren't the only ones sacrificing to keep the world running and better for so many people.

>>17049402
Under communism the kids begin mining at 5

>>17049517
you missed her point completely

>>17049520
I actually just thought it would be funny to say, so sure, I guess.

>>17049517
>Under communism the kids begin mining at 5
capitalism strikes again

>>17049488
>So the workers don't really determine their own work, in other words.
In thd way that they are beholden to eating and living yes. They don't become inmortal or alien after revolution. So theres of course incentive to work.
>Interesting that you didn't answer that one.
Lmao, it didnt deserve an answer. Can you imagine, a mob of your co-workers comes to your station. "HEY YOU BE LAZY AND INSUFFICIENT!!! OR ELSE." It was a totally unrealistic question so I kindly ignored it. You know what though, sure, some sperg could stay after work hours and continue working, record his production and be compensated for it. I don't see why not.
>loudest and most vicious among them
Don't be a pussy, also, I'm pretty sure they'll have rules for workplace violence you utter moron. They would still inhabit a society after all, you complete worm.
>The only hierarchy that will be elected in this scenario is that of mob rule
Mob rule? It's democracy, no ones voice outweighs another. As opposed to what? Corporate rule? A "president." I'll take mob rule(democracy).
>There won't be any autonomy
Yes, each worker will be far more autonomous due to reaping the benefit of his labor and working together with his coworkers for their best interest rather than for their owners utopia and draconian work hours.
>this is like having soldiers wage their own wars.
You must be a child or very low IQ. Every governement ever formed was formed by people anon. Workers can decide what form of government they live under. What's so difficult to understand you slimy debator?

capitalist countries famously never had child labor

>>17049538
Lol'd

>>17049269
That's because most people lack spirituality. Either that or they reject it in favour of materialism, and have been continuously doing so throughout human history.

>>17049510
>Free will doesn't exist
You don't know that at all. It's utterly unproveable, but as you posited.
>it is useful to feel as if it is.
Exactly, so whether it exists or not is irrelevant if each and every human on the goddamned planet perceives themselves to be in posession of choice.
>are indeed hierarchies and necessary for the stability of the broader population.
You're a fool. Slavery is not now nor was it ever necessary. Marriage isn't even strictly necessary even if it is beneficial. Imagine considering yourself such a philosopher that you open with free will doesnt exist and then immediately positing such an unexamined shallow statement.
>There are quite a lot of complex symbiotic relationships even in the animal kingdom.
Agreed. In fact, there's a nearly endless variety of relationships within the animal kingdom a result of years of genetic and environmental evolution. But think a little harder anon. Humanity has the capability of creating vastly more beneficial relationships. Lets take your statement on a silly ride.

Wolves will provide for and care for their injured and infirmed. IF they think they can survice. Now, humans have harnessed nature to greatly increase the chance of survival. What if wolves had the same control of technology? It only followz that they too would expand their horizons to caring for even more severe problems.

This is the nature of Marxism anon. Naturally, we are drawn to working together and providing for and with one another for the survival of our very species we are motivated by natural forces to lift one another up. Isn't nature wonderful?

Marx loved Darwin and wrote quite a good deal about him and there are many aspects of Darwinian thought within his literature.

>>17049562
The opposite actually, nobody can have an accurate view of reality we all have our own distortions for the sake of convenience and utility and momentum and sure it's more pronounced in some but no human is capable of operating outside of this. We are all delusional.

>>17049517
I hope not. I don't like to think about kids mining just so they can eat and I can watch some gay ass youtuber. I didn't earn or deserve that luxury ocer them. I would rather mine my own cobalt and build my own phone, but the world doesnt work that way.

>>17049538
>So theres of course incentive to work.
Only from other workers and what they want from life.

>Can you imagine, a mob of your co-workers comes to your station. "HEY YOU BE LAZY AND INSUFFICIENT!!! OR ELSE."
This has absolutely nothing to do with my question. How can you guarantee that workers won't organize to PREVENT demands that place any unwanted stress on them, i.e. organize to silence the demands of the fewest and most unique workers, when workers are the ones in control of assigning demands / work to themselves?

>I'm pretty sure they'll have rules for workplace violence you utter moron.
Not what I'm talking about. When you have a mob ruling themselves, those who are the most aggressive talk over the rest and get what they want, because the mob is dumb and lacks guidance.

>Mob rule? It's democracy, no ones voice outweighs another.
It'd be majoritarianism, not democracy, until you can sufficiently explain and guarantee how it wouldn't devolve into that.

>Yes, each worker will be far more autonomous due to reaping the benefit of his labor and working together
But humanity as a whole would be less autonomous because we would all be workers i.e. slaves and no one would have the capacity to stand outside that and focus on greater goals that require more painful sacrifices.

>Every governement ever formed was formed by people anon.
Formed by the people being governed, in all instances? Huh. How come you're against capitalism then? Who do you think formed that?

>>17049573
You are a big time dumb motherfucker, some words are not as bad and scary as your mind is telling you they are and this makes it impossible for you to approach certain ideas. You are hell bent on arguing rather than perceiving. You also know next to nothing about biology.

>>17049584
I will admit, I've become argumentative over the course of the thread. Please, explain your position in a better way if you require the talent to do so.

>>17049282
>fat jew terrible with money bitching about money and sentimentally demonizing it to no end
If there is any jew to hate, it's this petty douchebag. Not CEOs or guys on wall street.

>>17049589
s

>>17049589
Forgive me if I stop replying, I am going to bed soon. I'll try to get to most of the wrong things you said in that post though.

>Free will definitely does not exist and I reference Bohmian quantum mechanics and biological determinism for this

>Yes, it is irrelevant but it must be known otherwise you are being irresponsible

>when speaking about slavery and marriage in circumstantial necessity these words do not have fixed definitions definitely not fixed to modern usage of these words, and indeed an altruistic slave can feel the desire to remain a slave in the case that he believes there is a broader benefit, these words are not automatically related to bondage

>i will add to your animal kingdom words, there are fish that corral shrimp in order to farm their algae, there are spiders that utilize frogs to keep their eggs safe, the world is interconnected via micro organisms and in fact much of your behavior is directly related to this, as is everything else theres a lot of "behind the scenes" stuff in regards to what requires a microscope to see

>You are confusing altruistic cooperative strategies of evolutionary game theory with marxism, one is organic and provides its own momentum while the other is inorganic and cannot provide its own momentum

>Marx may have respected Darwin but we know a metric fuckton more about reality since this era

if you think the workers are the only contributers and deserve the profit then why dont you just start a business and structure it that way?

>>17049583
>Only from other workers
Idk anon, people like to eat and live and have things.
>How can you guarantee that workers won't organize to PREVENT demands that place any unwanted stress on them.
Why wouldn't they if they were in agreement that these demands weren't necessary for themselves or society why not prevent these demands?
>organize to silence the demands of the fewest and most unique workers, when workers are the ones in control of assigning demands / work to themselves?
Dude...I... there are different jobs. There isnt a daily meeting of the entire citizenry.

The fewest workers who still work together still have control over what they're working on. As do the most unique and specialized workers. They aren't at the whims of the workers across the state. They answer to themselves and their particular company. If it's an industry where these problems arise, workers are smart enough to create rules and associations that can handle these sorts of problems in a way people can agree on. Just like today if a worker has a fucking problem. They have systems in place if they desire to have systems in place(which most do.) I feel like you're envisioning something I haven't described. Just imagine things dont change a whole lot, only the workers recieve their share of the money made by their product and have a say in who manages what.
>because the mob is dumb and lacks guidance.
No dumber than the ones making decisions now. The loudests votes aren't louder and as above. There will undoubtedly be systems in place to handle these issues. I mean it's up to the workers of the corporation to decide what the systems are and what they look like. It makes sense to have them though so they would likely choose to establish them. They can create hierarchies within a company. If you don't like your companies policy you quit and find one you do like???
>democracy
Yes. Democracy.
>because we would all be workers i
My guy, there can still be schools, colleges, different professions? What are you imagining?
>How come you're against capitalism then?
Because Capitalism is fucking everything up right now to be short. Workers deserve the benefits of their sacrifice. Not some arbitrary number that they can barely survice on.

>>17049639
how do you feel about central banks constantly diluting the value of the dollars workers have in their hands

>>17049627
>>Free will definitely does not exist and I reference Bohmian quantum mechanics and biological determinism for this

Two highly contested "theories." Fuck off.
They haven't even discovered a single gene related directly to intelligence. It "appears" to correlate. That's the extent of the science and it looks the same everywhere you look in "biological determinism" the human genome and brain are both far too complex and environment is also proven to affect gene composition and behavior. Jesus. This is 101 shit.
>>Yes, it is irrelevant
Not only that it's unproven. Completely.
>and indeed an altruistic slave
That's not the example I gave. The fact is that most slaves haven't really enjoyed being slaves, and would prefer their freedom to act as they will.
>i will add to your animal kingdom words
I'm aware of damselfish. I understand basic microbiological interaction. In fact, it was my statement that there are a nearly endless variety of relationships. I'm aware of the complexity, it's so complex in fact that we haven't been able to prove anything to the point of determinism.

>>You are confusing altruistic cooperative strategies of evolutionary game theory with marxism
I was just juxtaposing the two as you like are aware of the former but disparage the latter.
>>Marx may have respected Darwin but we know a metric fuckton more about reality since this era
Yes, yet we remain far from knowing enough.

>>17049686
So now all you've done is say "no". That's fine.

>>17049659
They're shit, but our governments shit too. We should elect a federal chairman seperately, but fuck we suck at democracy bad. It's a fucked up situation right now in the world. I don't think we have enough gold for gold standard. I'm admittedly uneducated about modern banking though, and I have no embarrassment in admitting that.

he chad ngl

>>17049694
Dude. You know its disputed science that you're banking on. You have to. Just chill my guy

>>17049702
I am chill. I said it was fine. Beyond that, you cannot distinguish the relativity implied in my words, you seem to think in very black and white terms. Also I must say this, marxism is not altruism.

>>17049717
>you seem to think in very black and white terms.
Says the guy argueing that relative things are objective. The one saying it's all already determined. That's as binary as thoughy can be my friend. I am a thinker, not a believer in genetic fate.

>>17049723
That was in reference to your perception of slavery, not in regard to the very obvious non-relative nature of our reality. And please stop thinking of genetics as just a bag of possibilities.

>>17049717
I do understand the point you're attempting to make. That things unfurled naturally and that people in a society have a natural biological place, and that naturally some are beneath others...oh but I've seen it already friend. That fearful spark of humanity, that sheer willpower that can take nothing and create something, I've seen people seemingly biologicaly doomed to wither make miraculously comebacks through sheer will. Things are strange right now, but I believe in humanity and uncertainty. It's quite complicated to form into words, but it's real my friend. Humanities ability to make shape out of the shapeless. I've watched people die and be ressurected by my very hands, and they told me, they wanted to live, they chose it. I've seen others accept death and pass.

>>17049733
That is not at all in any way shape or form what I was saying, I was basically saying that good and bad are not what people think.

>>17049726
Well with 30000 genes most of which "seem" to respond to outside factors, we seem to have a bit of wiggle room.

>>17049739
You claimed that slavery was a justified hierarchy. Then I said, perhaps in rare situations, you then reasserted that slavery is a justified hierarchy. What meaning was I supposed to gather? Are you making a relative claim that good and bad are not concrete and vary greatly situation dependent? Then just say so because I agree.

>>17049741
Yes of course there is, but ultimately you will not ever see the vast majority of potential representations.

>>17049753
Yes fantastic

>>17049755
I doubt any of us will, though, science and technology seem to have a catalysing effect and I'm sure we are completely clueless as to how far China has pushed the boundaries of gene editing. I also saw that they achieved stable nuclear fusion. I wonder what the implications for our lust of discovery will ultimately be. Perhaps, I will become the altruistic slave that I detest. Maybe I already am.

>>17049774
I personally believe that quantum computing in conjunction with a type of technology such as neuralink will create a sort of singularity where we will see subjectivity in a much clearer way and be able to discern a lot more accurately what morality should be, and I think it will also validate a biologically determinant bohmian hypothesis. I think things seem random because of our own limitations.

me when I realized life is just the exchange of goods

>>17049793
It's entirely possible, though, I think unlikely. I think we may be able to increase our computing skills to the point of a near correct choice, but looming in the back of our consciousness we will still feel that same old humanity roaring at us and telling us to defy all logic. Telling us that there's some greater unknown. I don't think we will be able to make the fabric of chaos malleable, even if we may get a small glimpse of it. It's fun to think about though.

>>17049802
Oh shiet!

>>17049806
Indeed.

>>17049246
>government projects is socialism

>>17048723
Consider that this isn't true by virtue of you having to say it over and over.

>>17048830
this, that anon is just a ricardian socialist

Any third positionist here? Socialism for me and my countrymen, kill all whites.

>>17049029
>Grug own fish
What is "own"? Give fish to hungry child.
Simple as.

>>17049048
>>17049269
>>17049562
>>17049575
it's not about spirituality or whatever it's about accounting for a more complete view of reality. materialism, especially the vulgar economic kind, does not do this.

>>17049072
Nature does promote altruism, altruism to your kin, not to strangers.

Check em.

>>17048768
>More relevant than during the Russian revolution
Ok nigger, its 2020 and nobody actually reads his dribble

>>17048719
Dialectics is retarded.

>>17049234
Stop thinking you are speaking from a universal position you condescending American swine. It's you who has a deep misunderstanding of politics, the USSR never claimed to be communist, neither China, Cuba or whatever. They are socialist countries who have the goal to move towards communism. Since it's obviously an utopian pipe dream to move from capitalism to communism in an instant, Marx, Lenin, wrote about this. Also stop unironically calling American society free, last I checked Julian Assange is getting prosecuted, there are laws against colllecting rain water, any social program is labeled as communism, Americans are free to starve or sell their soul to an employer.

>>17048840
But what is the "full value" of your work?

Does it encompass the underlining work that was set in place to create your job?

>>17050996
>Also stop unironically calling American society free
But it is free. Free, at any rate, compared to the socialist countries you listed.

>>17051009
Freedom is nothing but an buzzword used by american politicians, free to do what? Watch this:
https://youtu.be/pMALdj8u_do

>>17051114
>free to do what?
Accumulate capital and invest it in whatever you want. Start your own businesses, even massive corporations if you have the means. Socialist countries don't provide the means to gain that much power, otherwise they wouldn't be socialist.

>>17051114
Freedom to choose between 20 of the same product all of which is ownex by the same 10 companies, which all own large shares of each other.

>>17051137
Freedom to rise above your consumerist serfdom, too. Serfs don't get much freedom, it's true, but it's because freedom is a privilege, not a human right.

>>17051009
Depends on what you call "free". Free to call your president a moron? Sure.

Individual freedom? Hell no.

>>17051130
Don't you see the contradiction? By starting a massive corporation you are essentially limiting the freedom of others. I would say that socialist countries are more merit based, that you have to earn trusts, but capitalist countries are capital based, if you have capital you rise to the top.

>>17048849
>oh be sure to blame black people for that :)
Cry harder nigger

>>17051161
most startups fail

>>17051161
>By starting a massive corporation you are essentially limiting the freedom of others.
That's not a contradiction, and no, I'm not limiting the freedom of others. See >>17051151, no one has freedom until they've obtained the right to it through means of power. To start your own corporation and produce what you want to produce means to have obtained the right to freedom through power and to be in the process of exercising that power as you see fit. You could also take the capital you've acquired and buy property and isolate yourself somewhere, or use it to simply invest rather than start your own businesses. The choice is yours. It's only limited by how much capital you have.

I much prefer mentality such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
over the privatization nightmare that is the US.

It was in the USA that I learned that beaches and parks "close at dusk" and cops drive around on quads to clean up "undesirables".

>>17051176
So?

>>17051179
Freedom thus is defined by how much capital you have, yet you make it seem like it's earned through the virtue of "power". But this isn't really a virtue is it? What is this power?
It's no wonder that ruthless psychopaths find a way to the top, since the market is ruthless and empathy is considered a weakness. To compete in the market you need to create the biggest possible difference between what you pay your employees and the value they create, if not you'll be eaten up by your competition in the next financial crisis every 10 years or so.
The US is a declining super power, China is a rising super power. I think this a perfect example that shows that capitalism is an antiquated system that needs to be phased out.

>>17051312
>What is this power?
What kind of question is that? It's the power to do or make what you want.

>muh psychopaths
Actual psychopaths don't get very far, and if they ever do it is an extremely rare case; this is a myth designed to tarnish the reputability of capital.

>China is a rising super power
China has obtained its power through capitalism.

>>17051335
China has a mixed socialist market economy where 40% is state-owned enterprises, and 60% private.
How much power you have is often limited by how much capital you own and vice versa.

>>17050640
Kill yourself

>>17050742
Yes I didn't say it didn't. It does promote multiple kinds of altruism and some are not simply your kin. Lots of forms of cooperation. The point is that it cannot be forced.

>>17050709
Low IQ post

>>17050996
You sir are a liar.

>>17051114
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in addition to the bill of rights.

No we don't have it in America but I would blame you for that.

>>17051401
China is only becoming a super power because of its private (capitalist) economy. It wouldn't even be considered otherwise.

>How much power you have is often limited by how much capital you own and vice versa.
Yes, and?

>>17051255
In my state everybody trespasses and were all a-okay with getting shot at for doing it.

>>17051435
>China is only becoming a super power because of its private (capitalist) economy.
This is a ridiculous statement. Why is it then that countries with a bigger private economy aren't experiencing the same amount of growth, especially this year most economies shrunk while the chinese economy grew.

>>17051176
Due to lack of initial Capital lol. Kinda proves his point.

>>17051455
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>17051461
They don't attain such capital because their idea is retarded. It is deeply important they not get this money, because they're retards.

>>17051510
What's so funny retard? China is showing that a mixed socialist market economy is more successful than neoliberal capitalism.

>>17051516
No. Initial capital. Meaning they don't start with enough money to establish a successful business. Mainly because whatever sector your into you're competing with megacorps who have shareholder monopolies. You sound young. Gott be 18 here apparently. Look into that.

>>17051546
They have an unlimited pool of capitalist money from America that has enabled this are you even aware of how the last 8 decades have worked? Products that are sold at walmart make the seller millionaires. This concept carries over to China, they essentially have the best sponsorship on the planet.

>>17051455
>Why is it then that countries with a bigger private economy aren't experiencing the same amount of growth
Because being capitalist doesn't guarantee financial success?

>>17051546
That was him conceding that he had exhausted his knowledge of the subject. It's a win for you. Congratulations

>>17051583
A person that has a good idea in a sector with big corps is a very lucky man, and will be a millionaire in T-minus 30 seconds. It's one of the best situations to find yourself in.

>>17051589
Very wrong, I was absolutely amused and not the person he was initially arguing with.

>>17051594

>>17051597
Smells like cope.

https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2871-how-most-millionaires-got-rich.html

Oh no no no

>>17051615
>>17051608
Lazy and weak posts by lazy and weak people. Disappointed. I just woke up. Come argue.

>>17051588
no but having great state intervention with economic planning helps. companies are encouraged to pursue middle term goals of investment in infrastructure and innovation. shareholders are beholden to the party. the idea that it's the free market organizing itself in china is ludicrous

>>17051585
america is sold out by its owners. china is a mercantilist power. its western capitalism making one last buck

>>17051623
If there wasn't a global capitalist economy to support it, China's economy would be like every other irrelevant country's. What's ludicrous is thinking that somehow China's current economic status means anything negative for capitalism.

>>17051621
Some of us have to work teenager. I argued plenty ITT. Waste away here. You're utterly insignificant.

>>17051631
Yeah we are getting sold out, but China buoyancy is directly established by this situation.

>>17051637
Oh I see you've conceded. Good. A loser for life.

What happens to the people that will inevitably work under the table in a socialist economy? It's just human nature. It will occur and you cannot prevent it. Are marxists merely human nature prohibitionists?

>>17051666
Yes. This is why Marx wanted to destroy Stirner as quickly as possible.

>>17051666
they will need to be shot, just like people who try to flee the economic order will be shot, as it was in the GDR/DDR.

>>17051707
You mean as if the human becomes the product rather than what the human can make?

>>17051130
At least you understand that the system is based around Capital accumulation. Most don't even understand this.
However, this freedom is a fiction, and you know it. It is extremely difficult to accumulate a vast amount of Capital. You need to be either extremely smart, or lucky, or very hardworking and patient.
It's 10 times easier if you are already born with Capital.
Also, it's a dog eat dog system. Exploit, or be exploited.

>>17051769
You are like baby

>>17051769
>However, this freedom is a fiction, and you know it.
How? People are accumulating capital all over the place and investing it in various things all the time.

>It's 10 times easier if you are already born with Capital.
So be born with capital lol. Or work so that your kids are.

>Also, it's a dog eat dog system. Exploit, or be exploited.
It's a dog eat dog world.

>>17051769
Nigga just go fishing and hug your family lmao

>>17051455
Retard.
First, not every country has the same population, size, and cultural homogeniety as China so expecting have the same amount of growth as China is absurd. You should compare the growth rate then there are plenty of them, especially Japan and South Korea.
Second, the reason China recovering fastest is because they can implement a strict lockdown and their citizens are used to comply to the government. The same thing has happened in Taiwan.
Btw, your so called socialist capitalist economy of China is total bullshit. China has much worse labor regulations than any Western countries. It's basically an authoritarian free market central state and it can alter the law according to whatever the party desire and the citizens have to take it, no question.
This is China's true success secret, its cultural inheritance from the imperial area. The role of Marxism is to sugar goat that truth, the same way Confucianism did before.

>>17051694
>That the communist sees the human being, the brother, in you is only the Sunday side of communism. According to the workday side, he doesn’t by any means take you as a human being as such, but as a human worker, as a working person. The liberal principle is there in the first view; illiberality is hidden in the second. If you were a “lazybones,” he would certainly not fail to recognize the human being in you, but would strive to cleanse it, as a “lazy human being,” from laziness, and to convert you to the faith that work is the human being’s “destiny and calling.”

>The principle of fortune or competition is certainly outdone by the principle of work. But at the same time the worker, in his awareness that the essential thing about him is “the worker,” keeps himself away from egoism and submits to the supremacy of a workers’ society, as the bourgeois citizen clung with devotion to the competition-state. The lovely dream of “social duty” is still being dreamed. People think again that society gives what we need, and we are therefore obligated to it, owe it everything. They still remain at the point of wanting to serve a “supreme giver of all good.” That society is no I at all, which could give, lend, or grant, but an instrument or means from which we might draw benefit; that we have no social obligations, but merely interests in pursuit of which society has to serve us; that we owe society no sacrifice, but if we sacrifice anything, sacrifice it to ourselves: the socialists don’t think about this, because they—as liberals—are trapped in the religious principle and zealously strive after—a sacred society, as the state was up to now.

>Society, from which we have everything, is a new master, a new phantasm, a new “supreme being,” which “takes us into its service and duty”!

>>17051827
>It's a dog eat dog world.
Wrong. If the relationship of production are based around a dog eat dog concept, it is normal that the world is a dog eat dog world.
However, if the realtionship of production are based around something else, for example, class, and without private property of the means of production, and no exploitation, it would undoubtly be different, probably for the better. Some attempts have been made by the way (Huterrites, Israeli Kibuttzim), , and globally, people are saner in those communities.
>>17051808
Okey Neytiri.
>>17051843
I do, but i can read Marx as well.

(...)edit:
for example, classless

>>17051707
what are you serious

>>17052004
You seem correct in your assessment, and you know as do I that no minds will be changed herein. The ones you're argueing with feel as if they've reached a "truth" theirselves, even if deel down, they and we know they were fed their ideology by misleading memes and propaganda from old /b to stormfags, to /pol and now, to everyday discussion. It was no accident, the masters of mankind understand that humans have dichotomies internal to their thought, they create the gathering places and help to spread these dichotomies, one to twitter, one to 4chan, some to various channels on a glowbox. They do this so that any semblance of unity is defeated preemptively. The truth matters little to an ideologue. However, I applaud you for choosing the false dichotomy that believes men can work together and manage themselves. Congratulations

>>17052004
>If the relationship of production are based around a dog eat dog concept, it is normal that the world is a dog eat dog world.
Wrong. The relationship of production is based around the nature of those who build and maintain it, not the other way around.

>>17052091
This is exactly what Marx said.

>>17052198
It's the exact opposite of what you / that guy just said, so I doubt that, unless you think I meant that it is only in the nature of some people. It is in everyone's and everything's nature to be exploitative.

>>17052198
>>17052233
Marx's theory of history attempts to describe the way in which humans change their environments and (in dialectical relation) their environments change them as well. That is:

Not only do the objective conditions change in the act of reproduction, e.g. the village becomes a town, the wilderness a cleared field etc., but the producers change, too, in that they bring out new qualities in themselves, develop themselves in production, transform themselves, develop new powers and ideas, new modes of intercourse, new needs and new language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_human_nature#Human_nature_and_historical_materialism

>>17049242
History of Soviet Union shows problem is precisely opposite
Problem is how to make state strong enough to not wither away prematurely

>he hasn't grokked Peterson

>>17052272
No qualities come out that aren't already there. What, you think they appear out of thin air, and have no physical basis?

Further, no one is changed by their environment. Some people are merely impeded by it. These people typically do things like become alcoholics so they can forget themselves.

>>17052309
>no one is changed by their environment.
Why would one attempt a good faith debate with one so utterly confused.

>>17052342
Show me a person whose nature has been changed by their environment. You can't.

>>17052370
Hitler

>>17052370

>>17052390
lol, in what way?

>>17052370
Every single human and the genes within him are affected by their environment. If a child is scolded for behaving badly and decides to behave better he is changed by his environment. You should study more and believe what you read on 4chan less.

marx is just a poor man's ezra pound

>>17048768
only too larping zoomers that are mad they did not see the USSR fall

>>17052404
>Every single human and the genes within him are affected by their environment.
Affected does not mean changed. Read >>17052309 again. To be impeded by one's environment is not the same as having one's nature changed by it.

>If a child is scolded for behaving badly and decides to behave better he is changed by his environment.
No, it is in the child's nature already to be dutiful to the parent / guardian. A child whose nature does not possess this drive in it won't obey.

>>17048719
>marxists think there will be a 'classless, stateless society' when every time they try to do anything they reinforce statist divisions

>>17050628
Consider that it has to be said over and over because Marxists have pocket change IQ and never get tired of hearing themselves babble the same retarded talking points every year.

>>17052419
tldr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

Can we end this debate now? Nothing fruitful will come from it.

>>17052441
>Nothing fruitful will come from it.
For you, because you're a retard who can only win if dialectics isn't fraudulent nonsense with no actual bearing on nature.

>>17052419
You are an utter fool clinging to pseudoscience to fuel your desire for coping with your own failure. As environments have changed, the very nature of humanity has as well. Humans developed consciousness, and from that rationality. We can even ignore our intrinsic animal nature as do tibetan monks fasting. We can rationalize when not to have sex as animals can not. We can rationalize when not to murder, though our "human nature" may instruct us through feeling that it is appropriate.

>>17052450
>dialectics isn't fraudulent nonsense with no actual bearing on nature
Lol exactly what you're doing.

>>17052419
Human nature is emo teenager philosophy. Just saying.

>>17052450
Side-tracking the discussion with nature vs nurture bullshit is tired and uninteresting.

>>17049214
It's a term from the Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land. It means to comprehend fully, to the point that there is no distinction between concept and observer.
Nerds in the 80s memed it into the dictionary.

>>17052496
what lmao
do you think there is no human nature, we are infinitely malleable springs of aether, we didn't evolve like all other organisms to have certain traits?

>>17052518
>do you think there is no human nature
Not him, but he probably realizes that pondering human nature requires something so complex and seemingly variable that it's utterly pointless to use as a crutch when you find yourself unable to debate further. You're only correct about human nature if you reduce it to its most basic observable functions. Such as, humans crave food, shelter, and sex.

>>17052518
>we are infinitely malleable springs of aether,
In the grand scheme of things, yes, it is possibly something like that.
But in any case, the relationships of production have more influence in daily life than DNA particularism.
If not, most of us probably would have killed someone, eaten human flesh, would be praying the gods and the spirits, would be eager for the next hunt etc...
None of those happened, because we are not in primitive communism anymore.

>>17052575
>In the grand scheme of things, yes, it is possibly something like that.
absolutely lol at your mind

you will be continually surprised by how people act your entire life because you are unwilling to accept the very obvious facts about their nature that even most children can grasp

>>17052485
>Humans developed consciousness, and from that rationality.
Not in accordance with the environment, but in accordance with evolutionary changes in our biology, which was never changed by the environment and only ever impeded by it. It's our nature that reacts to this impediment and creates new routes for itself. The change is all internal.

>>17052493
Not what I'm doing at all.

>>17052502
It's not a sidetrack, dialectics is meaningless bullshit and always was, even while Socrates championed it, and it only impedes (not changes) nature, by means of being meaningless bullshit. Marxists have nothing but dialectics. It's why their arguments aren't arguments and always boil down to vague moralistic claims about society and human nature. Marx was a self-righteous buffoon who didn't understand Darwin but was more than happy to co-opt his theory of evolution to give false credence to the scam he was peddling.

>>17052589
People act contrary to natural processes every day. Lol at your mind. You will be constantly flummoxed as humans forego what animal nature would dictate because you are unwilling to accept the very obvious facts about human nature, the variability that even children can grasp.

>>17052594
>evolutionary changes in our biology, which was never changed by the environment
Utterly false. Genes respond to the environment, not simply the impediment that it imposes.
>The change is all internal.
This is utterly unproveable. Cope.
>only impedes (not changes) nature,
Oh, so it does change nature by your own indication that evolution only changes to overcome impediment.

You are a pseud who's trying very hard to support science that you don't understand and that many smarter men have refuted.

You should stop.

>>17052589
Read Hegel. I'm a beginner in Hegel. But from what i got, evolution of beings is a constant evolution of thesis/antithesis, synthesis. Nothing is static.

>>17052625
Heraclitus already done did said that.

>>17052594
>Marx was a self-righteous buffoon who didn't understand Darwin
Humans are something else than a wolf, or a lion. Even a dog is severely influence by it's environment. Human are no animals. Science cannot define what a human is actually. The memories are not in the brain, junk DNA is everything but junk, and scientist cannot explain how sapiens went from his closer common ancestor to what he is in such a few generations. The gene modifications are way too important, and cannot seem to be something natural.

>>17052639
Yes. It's on my reading list. Parmenides as well.

>>17052654
No bro. It's all genetic bro. It's all genetic and predetermined.

This is the pillar of their worldview, they couldn't justify their position without nonsense, so they lean on reducing the immeasurably complex into genetic determinism and lack of free will.

>>17048719
This graph explains NOTHING what the fuck.

>>17052597
I haven't been surprised by something a person has done since I was 16 and had my first gf

>>17052672
where does it come from if not genetics + environment, is it god lmao
>free will
even more lmao

>>17052690

>>17052672
I was also like this. Must be some early 20s worldview.

>>17052705
people are not complicated, their behavior is very predictable, it is only willful self-delusion that prevents you from seeing this

>>17052699
>genetics + environment
He's finally conceded.
>>free will
>even more lmao
Believing in the utterly unproveable. It's even worse than unproveable though, it makes absolutely no difference, as everyone on the planet perceives themselves and acts and behaves as if they have free will, and to top it off, the concrete physical structures of reality act to our perception of willfully acting against them.

What a pseud you are. Called out because your worldview is shallow and implausible.

>>17052673

>>17052726
define free will lol

and you are the one who has to concede that you are nothing but your genes mediated by an environment

>>17052714
That's also what I thought when I was 16. You are rationalizing behavior to be predictable only after you have actually observed it.

Socialism does not work.

Communism does not work.

Marxism does not work.

>>17052763
No I am predicting in advance how people will behave and I am rarely wrong. You don't need to be smart to do this, even most retards have an instinctive grasp on the dynamic since it is so important to be able to navigate reality. Midwits who convince themselves of various abstract meme theories are the ones who fail to recognize what is staring them in the face, and continually say things like "i just don't understand how anyone could think/do that'' because they're disconnected from reality.

>>17052782
So what are you doing with this super power now?

.
>>17052745
I'm conceding nothing, it was my original position that the environment has a major impact on genes and by that extension humanity. You foolish child.

>define free will
There are many ways to define free will. For me it's choice. It's the fact that you can choose a limitless amount of paths of action.

I understand the philosophy kid, I get that I can't prove that what I've done and am doing is fate or determined. This simply returns to the point you couldnt address previous. Regardless of proof of will, everyone on the planet perceives themselves and acts and behaves as if they have free will. Since this "act" effects the material world, then it is by it's bery nature as real as any other perceivable thing.

>>17052765
meanwhile...

>>17052791
>I can't even define this thing I think exists
lol

You are admitting that genes have a major impact too right?

>>17052791
>you can choose a limitless amount of paths of action.
absolutely lol, yes you're magic, you are a God, you're totally not just doing things that were caused by prior things, like you know everything else in reality

>>17052807
>lol
You worm, your foundation crumbled and you are still attempting to stand.
>You are admitting that genes have a major impact too right?
Never denied such.

>>17052811
>absolutely lol, yes you're magic, you are a God, you're totally not just doing things that were caused by prior things, like you know everything else in reality
Oh, I perfectly understand that we're all responding to stimuli, still, I could refuse to acknowledge them.

I urge you to act as if you don't have free will. Put some work into your pet theory. Hurry now, act as if your will doesnt exist.

>>17052765

>>17052786
>he thinks being able to understand people is a superpower
autism central
>>17052840
Everything you do is caused by something else, including your childish denial of this, you aren;t magic, you're a biological organism, a sort of retarded one I guess

>>17052861
It sounds mighty useful to be able to always predict how people will behave in advance. What are you doing with this ability?

>>17048719
>socially necessary labor time
What if technology changes?

>>17052861
>Everything you do is caused by something else
Yes, outside stimulus. And this opens many paths to react to them, and then you choose a path. To say that our actions are cumulations of prior stimulus and events does not refute free will, it only narrows it.

>>17052616
>Genes respond to the environment, not simply the impediment that it imposes.
They "respond" i.e. redirect their goals according to the obstacles in front of them. At what point does this natural process, which is simply the process of growth / obtaining more power for itself, get changed by the environment, so that it has a new directive? When has it EVER been changed by the environment? Especially when rest of the environment is the same exact process (nature)!

Your dialectical bullshit about there ever being humans who are NOT chiefly concerned with their own growth and the exploitation of others for that purpose doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist anywhere in nature, and this has never changed.

>This is utterly unproveable.
False. Darwin helped to prove it.

>Oh, so it does change nature by your own indication that evolution only changes to overcome impediment.
That's not a change. The directive remains the same, and so does nature. The evolutionary process does not halt at any time.

>>17052952
Since you said nothing new, I won't either.
Good to see your a Darwinist like Marx

>>17053009
>ha ha poo poo pee pee no argument *bonk*
Glad to see you're keeping up the Marxist tradition of being a massive bullshitter.

>>17052940
>hen you choose a path.
yeah and something causes you to choose whatever you choose, you're not magic

>>17053036
Yikes, what a fucking cope
>muh human nature
Not even involved in this but popping in to say you've been thoroughly demolished by the other guy, yikes