/lit/ - Literature

Later Marxists improved on some of Marx's theories, e.g. Marx thought that socialist revolutions would first occur in the most developed countries, whereas Lenin demonstrated the opposite was true.

>>18494692
Didn't Marx sort of go back on this in his correspondence with the Russian radicals?

>>18494692
But the foundation of Marx’s thought is flawed. He reduces men to labor power and think “owning the means of production” would actually emancipate them. But labor and production themselves need to be questioned and transcended. Marxism is productivist bullshit, that’s why Marx and Engels thought Socialism would come from Capitalism itself.

>>18494730
>you can have post scarcity without going through an industrial stage
How

>>18494698
I'm not sure. I know Engels at one point (possibly in a letter, but I can't exactly recall) noted that the English proletariat was becoming "more bourgeois," which I suppose is a precursor to later Third Worldist ideas.

>>18494678
Stirner completely shitting on the obligative nature of all forms of Cummunism.

>>18494739
Marxism’s obsession with “dominance over nature” and “progress” can’t take us out of the industrial stage. That’s why every kind of attempt at communism relies extensively on industry. Did you see that video of Grimes praising AI as a too for a socialist future? Pseudo-socialists dissed her for that. But she was right, this is basically Marx’s wet dream (read “Fragment on Machines”).

>>18494753
Do you have a link for that text? Can’t find it. Thanks.

Thomas Sowell - Marxism

>>18494841
I don't think Marxists are necessarily too concerned with mastery of nature even if Marx was. There are plenty of eco-socialists informed by Marxism. And what's the point of doing anything if there's no such thing as progress? You really think we're in a kind of steady state where the bad and good remain in homeostasis?

>>18494763
The correct answer

>>18494857
He said non-liberal

>>18494841
I was listening to a Michael Hudson talk and he pointed out that there were a variety of different socialisms in the 19th century who were thinking of futuristic societies that would emerge from industrial capitalism. And Marx was one of them and his movement differentiated themselves from other socialisms by calling themselves communists.

Grimes can be sorta "right" in a general sense, A.I. can be a tool, but I think the debate is over ownership, really. Or who programs the A.I. to do what, precisely.

>>18494866
Would bakunin count?

>>18494917
Of course Grimes is right, she only got panned by misanthropes who feel humanity is too fallen to not be wiped out by a higher entity.

>>18494925
If you want ad hominems

>>18494678
>What’s the best non-capitalist/non-liberal critique of Marx/Marxism?
if you want Post-Marxist and anarchist critics of Marxism, just ask. not sure why you would, since they're all frauds.

>>18494678
>Baudrillard’s The Mirror of Production
Qrd?

>>18494953
>marxists call everything they don't like "bourgeois"
>t-that's an ad hom

>>18494972
Google it. It’s a short read and one of Baudrillard’s most accessible works.

>>18494958
You sound biased.

>>18495020
He's right though.

>>18495031
What’s wrong with their critiques? Are they similar? I’m genuinely asking.

The thing with Marx is that his method of understand reality implies to transcend his system at some point. Otherwise we’d be stuck in a dogmatic, obsolete reading of the world.

>>18494851
It might be this one:
>You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general: the same as what the bourgeois think. There is no workers' party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England's monopoly of the world market and the colonies.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_09_12.htm

>>18494763
if I am a poor fuck , with no future, would'nt be to my best egotistical interest to have a socialist, comunist party in power so mi life is lest shitty?

>>18494851
>>18495073
Actually, Lenin cites the letter here:
>In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: “...The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

>>18495002
>marx didn't critique work
Shitty argument.

>>18495073
Alright thanks.
>>18495080
I haven’t read Stirner but I’m pretty sure he would describe this as a spook.

>>18495095
You clearly haven’t read it. You read a short and incomplete summary. Baudrillard’s take is actually sophisticated.
>>18495090
Nice.

>>18495056
all of their critiques are incredibly similar and say one of two things: Marxism isn't communist enough, or it doesn't apply to some new phenomenon. and they're all frauds because they do not challenge any of the fundamental presuppositions of their milieu, they never engage with anything outside their small circle, they never bother with actual history or economics, and they all inevitably depend on the unreflective tendency in leftist to endlessly criticize your way further left while relying on your bedfellows for book sales and relevance. who gives a shit about post-Marxists: economists? historians? no, just Marxists.

>>18495102
>Baudrillard’s take
Which is?

>>18495113
What are their presuppositions?

>>18495124
Basically:
>For Baudrillard, Marx did not transcend political economy but merely saw its reverse or its “mirror” side. Marxism merely strengthens political economy’s basic propositions, in particular the idea that self-creation is performed through productive, non-alienated labor. In Baudrillard’s words, “[Marxism] convinces men that they are alienated by the sale of their labor power, thus censoring the much more radical hypothesis that they might be alienated as labor power.” Baudrillard proposes to liberate workers from their "labor value" and think in terms other than production.

But it’s reductive so I would advise you to read “The Mirror of Production”.
>>18495113
Oh I see what you mean. They’re still stuck in the same dogmatic system.

>>18494678
>I think Baudrillard’s The Mirror of Production obliterated Marx
Read Michael Heinrich.

>>18494678
Anti-Oedipus

>>18494678
Just read Marx and critique him yourself. It’s not hard, he contradicts himself very often.

>>18494692
>>18494730
Every industrializing/developed, capitalist nation extant at the time experienced some form of socialist revolution at the end of the 19th, or beginning of the 20th, century. That is literally where labor unions came from. They were either stopped because of other economic/market forces (like a couple world wars and the red scare), were repressed by capitalist/government intervention, or simply failed at their revolutions. Developed nations and capitalism literally did spawn socialist revolutions.
The only thing they were wrong about was assuming that socialism would be able to outcompete capitalism (it didn't/hasn't) and that, therefore, socialist revolutions would automatically succeed. The only """""socialist""""" revolutions that managed to succeed were communist ones, often backed up by capitalist nations or existing communist nations.

>>18495080
>socialist, communist party in power
>makes life less shitty
Yea, that's why there's so many people fleeing capitalist nations to the communist shitholes and not the other way around.
Wait a second...
It's peak fucking irony that the only remaining communist nation which isn't an absolutely despotic shithole (command economies are not communism, grow up and read Marx you dipshits) is Vietnam, which sucks capitalist U.S. cock like it's going out of style so that China won't buttfuck them out of existence.

And no, Stirner would call you a fucking idiot and a spook for not seizing what you needed to not be a poor fuck with no future and instead choosing to make yourself someone else's property. There is nothing egotistical whatsoever about abdicating your independence to the state.

>>18494692
there has only been true revolutions in 5 countries through the 20th century, russia, the 6th biggest economy in the world at that time, Germany, and Hungary, with the possible addition of check republic and Hungary again, to say any of those was poor is just braindead. Other shit like china, that's just national liberation under a red blanquet, mao himself even admits this, by saying they are "working with the bourgeois and peasants " which I remind you is the same thing fascists believe, not marx. Every other "revolution" post china, follows the same path of unity with the national bourgeois, and is thus just a bourgeois revolution

>>18495160
you don't self create through labour in marx, that's a missread, you objectivize your personality through your own work , self creation is of no concern to marx, rather the argument is that the alienation from the objectivization of yourself is a painful process

>>18496001
>you objectivize your personality through your own wor
sounds like romantic humanist bs

Tadao Horie's Marx's Capital and One Free World
Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism

Those should keep you occupied for a while.

>>18496026
>Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism
This is liberal/capitalist isn't it?

>>18496001
Morever, the idea that alienated labor prevents your self creation is merely a consequence of the fact that you sell your time to capital, and get only what's needed to survive, meaning capitalism is not conducive to self creation, but this is not part of marx's critique of work through alienation, it is merely a consequence, the true critique of labour is that the alienation of the objectivization of your personality in the world just isolates you from the world, turns your job into shit, make your conditions of living trash, and make your life a living nightmare, not necessarily that we need to get to some ideal state of self creation of everyone, that's not even important. To strive for philosophies that actually are conducive to self creation is not only useless, but additionally inherently capitalist, as self-creation happens inherently through consumption of comoddities in capitalism

>>18495113
>they're all frauds because they do not challenge any of the fundamental presuppositions of their milieu, they never engage with anything outside their small circle, they never bother with actual history or economics

>>18495529
DANGEROUSLY BASED

>>18494678
Bataille maybe? Baudrillard wrote an article about his critique on communism

>>18495669
>Yea, that's why there's so many people fleeing capitalist nations to the communist shitholes and not the other way around.
Probably for the same reason you don't see many wealthy capitalists fleeing into the ranks of the proletariat. There are plenty of people in the capitalist countries who are not rich by the standards of their country, most people in America for example are doing okay by the standards of a lot of countries in the world so a kind of centrist Biden liberalism is an acceptable system.

https://youtu.be/_v1vWEIJ8YM

>>18495090
Engels was based. The original proto-tankie.

"But as to what social and political phases these countries will then have to pass through before they likewise arrive at socialist organisation, we to-day can only advance rather idle hypotheses, I think. One thing alone is certain: the victorious proletariat can force no blessings of any kind upon any foreign nation without undermining its own victory by so doing. Which of course by no means excludes defensive wars of various kinds.

https://youtu.be/U952RMdNnuU

>>18495548
That’s what I did and the reason I like Baudrillard’s take so much is because he actually verbalized some of my intuitions.

>>18494678
The starvation of the people whose governments make the error of trying to apply Marx's thoughts.

Probably some Papal encyclical.

>>18496764
Engels was actually the better historical materialist in every aspect except philosophy.

>Completes Capital
>Major historical, anthropological and sociological statements, all of which are useful for building workers movements to shoot bosses
>Fucks two sisters at the same time
>Parties

The only problem with Engels is Anti-Duhring is a fucking mess and inspired Leninists, Tankies, Trots and Maoists.

>>18494678
Marxist critiques of Marx are the best non-capitalist/non-liberal critiques of Marx.

The only *substantial* critique of Marx is praxic.

>>18495669
>The only """""socialist""""" revolutions that managed to succeed were communist ones
what the fuck does this mean

>>18494841
>Marxism’s obsession with “dominance over nature” and “progress
So you haven't read Marx entirely. Read on the jewish question, were Marx wants to free nature:
"The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in imagination.
It is in this sense that [in a 1524 pamphlet] Thomas Münzer declares it intolerable
“that all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too, must become free.”

About the fragment on machines, Marx was not glorifying the automation which would happen eventually, with machines dictating man what to do. He anticipated what would happen if capitalism continued it's course until the end, without glorifying it. His own vision and obsession was not automation of the whole society, but a classless society.

>>18494917
>Grimes can be sorta "right" in a general sense, A.I. can be a tool, but I think the debate is over ownership, really. Or who programs the A.I. to do what, precisely.
That's right. AI can be a nightmare, but it could also be okay, if it's systematically decentralized, and based on (true) egalitarianism.
In the end, AI is only a reflection of us. AI is an artificial version of us. If we keep to be egoistical, like we are in Capitalism, the AI will be evil. If we obsess over decentralization, social egalitarianism, it could be okay.
I'm personally opposed to AI. But everybody use it already. Included those who say that they are against it. Who doesn't use GPS, or search engines?

>>18494678
a non-capitalist attempt at a critique of Marxism became impossible after any relevant movement towards the restoration of feudalism had been historically eliminated over 100 years ago

>>18494692
wrong, Marx personally wrote that it could begin in Russia

>>18494753
this wasn't anything new and it doesn't lead to "Third Worldism". already in the 1840s Marx and Engels wrote that the ideology of the ruling class is the prevailing ideology and they obviously never thought that this was something that should render communist revolution impossible

>>18494841
if Marxism is obsessed with anything then it's not humanity's control over nature but humanity's control over itself. nautral science and the resulting perspective of eternal progress have been the obsession not of the theoreticians of the proletarian revolution but of those of the bourgeois revolution. Marxism takes the development of productive forces already as a given and criticizes the bourgeois idea of progress as being rooted in the mistaken belief in the permanence of the capitalist form of production.

what he prophesizes for bourgeois society is not eternal progress but a catastrophe, and for communist society he prophesizes nothing, because it won't evolve according to any historical or economic laws anymore: exactly the meaning of humanity gaining control over itself.

>>18495056
the transcending of Marx's "system" will be the communist revolution, which will relegate him to history books -- the revolution, for which Baudrillard or some other faggot abstractly philosophizing about alienation in just the right way is not a prerequisite by any means

>>18496062
of course

>>18497611
Engels really lacks vision, especially in the spiritual (he was agnostic). Contrary to Marx, who see the divine plan in action (Theses on Feuerbach).

>>18495669

You know socialism is not communism, right ?

>>18494692

Huh ? How would socialist revolutions occur in developed countries when the cause of socialist revolutions was exploitation of the working class ?

>>18494678

Can confirm that The Mirror of Production is pretty good.

>>18496001
>>18496064
>not necessarily that we need to get to some ideal state of self creation of everyone, that's not even important.

Does Marx not explicitly say that his ideal state of affairs, or at least the state of affairs furthest from the current one that he desires and cares to describe, is indistinguishable from the colloquial "gig economy", "fishing without being a fisherman" and such?

>>18494841
Contemporary scholarship on Marx shows that perception of Marx is one sided at best, and requires us to neglect a huge amount of his writing.

>>18498432
meme book that only ever gets pulled out to counter this critique

>>18498207
It is, get Stalin out of your head.

>>18498134
On the Jewish question is one of his earliest texts. Marx’s take on nature changed as he grew older.

>>18494692
Lenin didn't demonstrate shit. He himself wrote about how the Union would necessarily need support from revolutions in western countries to survive. As it turned out 70 years later, he was right.
Marx, on the other hand, has at this point reached a Q level of failed predictions. The accumulation of wealth didn't result in lower living standards. In fact, those have been steadily rising despite the rich accumulating more and more capital.
The revolution never spread, and failed pretty much on its own. No country ever progressed past the dictatorship of the proletariat.

>>18498813
That's a good critique (young and old Marx). However, old Marx, in the critique of the Gotha program, still seem to be critique of man excessive use of nature:
"And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and
subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values,
therefore also of wealth."

>>18494678
The best refuatation of Marxism is reality

>>18498886
>No country ever progressed past the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Worse, the dictatorship of the prolétariat never happened.

>>18498369
no, conscious control over what we do is the opposite of being tossed around according to the demands of capital accumulation

>>18498886
if your only criticism of Marx is based on two things his theory doesn't even include then you should keep it to yourself, because this only hurts your case

>>18498886
>No country ever progressed past the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Lenin is vanguard of the proletariat.

>>18498886
>The accumulation of wealth didn't result in lower living standards.
rate of exploitation is not about living standards

>>18494678
The Philosophy of Marx (La filosofia di Marx) by Giovanni Gentile. I don't believe an English edition is available, but heard that a small right wing publisher is working on it.

>>18499030

What distinguishes "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" from atomized free market nihilism? Both converge in Tedian-Vargian phantasmagoria, crypto-Hyperborean utopia, naive technocracy informed by naive Empiricism, etc.

Marxism doesn't work.

There's your critique

>>18499819
Yep. Marx’s productivism is inherently submitted to the same conception of labor as a production. But production implies productivity and productivity leads to a desire for abundance. As Baudrillard pointed out, social organizations aren’t all defined by the way men “transform” nature through labor. Actually, this “transformation” is illusory according to Baudrillard as well as this tendency to separate man from nature. Primitive societies don’t rely on production but on symbolic exchange: gift and reciprocity, rituals and feasts etc. Marx’s whole system of historical materialism is bourgeois, Eurocentric and modern, therefore it can’t be universal and timeless.

>>18499883
>Marx’s whole system of historical materialism is bourgeois, Eurocentric and modern, therefore it can’t be universal and timeless.
Well on Eurocentrism, who do the Chinese take more seriously? Baudrillard or Marx? I would bet Karl Marx because Western academic postmodernism only makes sense by rejecting "totalitarianism" around the same time that Fukayama was raving about the capitalist end of history. Hence identity politics and Marx was "a white European male," contemporary strains of anarchism, etc. etc. etc.

But it's started to sound a little worn out. I think the postmodern theorists did recognize Marxism was collapsing in their time, but didn't understand that historical materialist principles do hold that there will be great advances and also great retreats since there's a dialectical contradiction of success and failure, mediated through history, which can be boiled down to "there's a long march toward socialism." It's coming back though

https://youtu.be/gbMW2tjb5Ks

>>18499308
this is from the perspective of a derivative of Hegelian idealism, which was the highest point of bourgeois philosophy. decidedly not a non-capitalist critique. rather an apology for the capitalist state

>>18499819
>What distinguishes "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" from atomized free market nihilism?
direct sociality rather than atomization, social-wide plan rather than free market, freedom of humanity's self-direction according to values that it develops for itself rather than nihilism resulting from the multiplication in terms of economic value becoming the sole goal of activity thereby pushing out all other values

>>18499883
>Primitive societies don’t rely on production
right, they subsist on air

>>18500095
Production is a category which can’t be applied to the results of labor done by primitive societies, you idiot. Primitive societies don’t produce anything, they participate in symbolic exchange.

>>18500095
>direct sociality rather than atomization, social-wide plan rather than free market, freedom of humanity's self-direction according to values that it develops for itself rather than nihilism resulting from the multiplication in terms of economic value becoming the sole goal of activity thereby pushing out all other values

But muskbros and cryptodudes likewise insist that atomization IS direct sociality, that the free market will immanentize THE plan, that precisely this freedom is contingent on, if not SYNONYMOUS to, free exchange that supposedly increases value bilaterally and so on. Ceiling and floor, at most, if not two sides of the same coin.

>>18494678
you answered your own question retard

https://www.scaruffi.com/phi/syn138.html

>information utopia
>There is little inequality in the information that the poor and the rich can access
>younger generations live in a state of euphoria due to the progress of the information and communication utopias, and not in a state of desperation due to rising income inequality
>Indirectly, what has happened is that the media that are used by the masses as instruments of information are also used by the establishment as instruments of control, as information reduces (not increases) the motivation to revolt against the establishment.

>>18500295
Based /mu/tant

>>18494692
Eh, Marx already did what Lenin did but better. If only the late 19th century Russian intellectuals would have agreed with them and got behind the peasants. Also Lenin was at least okay with the peasants compared to trostsky or Stalin but still set up a taylorist police state the would be their demise.
>>18494698
Yes he did and rejected Russian "Marxism" Read the drafts/letter to zasulich and Late Marx and the Russian Road. The theory in capital only applies to western Europe and many more spicy things. He rejected linear theories of historical development especially the unilinear theory that came to be called 'historical materialism' as the official ideology of Stalin's regime. He wouldn't believe the myth of progress at all if he were alive today.

>>18494730
Sure anon, the philosopher that wants to abolish work is "productivist"

is there every one who looks for this kind of thing that isn't just saying 'my friends are mostly leftists and i want to strike out from the crowd'

>>18494692
>Lenigga

>>18497611
>Engels was actually the better historical materialist

>Engels is Anti-Duhring is a fucking mess and inspired Leninists, Tankies, Trots and Maoists.

Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Kim, Sankara, Nkruma, and Castro all agree. So either they all agree with Marx because Engels agrees with Marx, or none of them agree with Marx because Engels was wrong. You can't have both.

>>18500398
>myth of progress
Do you read Greer?

>>18497611
Marx was not a historical materialist and brainlet Engles gave credit to the "Marxism" that came to be.

>>18500095
>a derivative of Hegelian idealism, which was the highest point of bourgeois philosophy
don't marxists frame everything they don't like as bourgeois/reactionary? care to give your argument for why you feel comfortable reducing Hegel to the label 'bourgeois thinker'?

>>18500460
Idiots agreeing with a sage don’t make the idiots sages.

>>18500475
You mean dialectical materialist. And given the descriptive content of historical materialist he was.

>>18500398
So wold Marx disprove of fully automated luxury gay space communism?

>>18500464
No. I just think progress is a social darwinist myth of societal orthogenesis first favored by slave owners colonists and settler genocide enthusiasts and then industrialists and naive people. Now it's chief proponents are ecocidal maniacs like Pinker gates and the rest of the epstein crew. Not to mention that what we call progress is really just surplus production from fossil energy and biocultural homogenization.
This is why it is not woke to be a progressive.

>>18500499
Letter to zasulich and your btfo. He was definitely a technological determinist but his dialectic only applied to the material conditions of western Europe at the time he was writing capital

>>18500505
But the progressives are the complete opposite of racist social darwinist..

>>18500517
>He was definitely a technological determinist
Marx???????
it literally says the opposite

>>18500538
Politically yes but only in nation states that would collapse without the constant upshoot of energy throughput and exspansion of extractive infrastructure into the living world. Look at it agnotologically and it's clear calling the fight for justice and equity 'progress' cripples the movement and chains it to NWO alphabet agencies. Or look at it critically, the structural and institutional continuities are clear. So you are correct that ideologically they are not, but if account for semiosis and the fact that ideas find their own suitable vehicles by information and lack thereof which is at the mercy of folly propaganda and social engieers who don't understand the game any better than the people they manipulate. it's clearly a 'natural progression' with the same end result, general death for the whole of the living world.
Eh. I'm not really feeling it today. I am not happy with this post at all :(

>>18500592
To vague for me to know what 'it' or 'the opposite' is meant to be interpreted as.
Learn how to communicate please

>>18500517
>but his dialectic only applied to the material conditions of western Europe at the time he was writing capital
You mean history. He viewed man and his tools in time as determining. That’s historical materialism. Dialectical materialism is “my cats diabetes is formed by a dialectic”

>You decree for the cheka, then you get the pecka
>You begin the red terror you've acted in error
>You arrest them as dissidents then you get an incident
>If you ignored the election here's a three-round correction

What was that thread Nietzschean critiques of capitalism or something.

>>18500501
The guy who coined the phrase lumpenproletariat? Yeah, anyone can notice these goons on the street aren't changing shit. Seeing Marx's reaction to his legacy would be really entertaining actually.

>>18500620
I think you are potentially going crazy m8, I dont really get what you're saying

>>18500686
Possibly, but consider that I am only writing for myself and my people who want to find out.
You could ask me questions that clarify what I am talking about. Clarify for you but especially for me. You could attempt your own inquiry. I don't really know what I am saying and as stated I definitely am not happy with the communication you are replying to.
So throw me a bone and chew on mine. I don't see what you were expecting this meaningless reply to give me. Hell I'd probably be happy to give you references(if any) or just more of my thoughts and feelings if you can ask for something particular. You go to dinner with the Joker and the only thing you can communicate is his insanity? Lame.
Insanity is simply seeing something no one else does

>>18500813
I take it you are using bits of Marxist theory, but idk how you are getting around the fact that the progressives are specifically very antiracist and very opposed to social darwinism(see 'ableism' and whatever, or the concept of welfare). Like these are very important tenets for them

>>18500686
>I think you are potentially going crazy m8
>>18500813
>Possibly

Based.

>>18500635
Letter to zasulich

>>18500620
>>18500686
>Otology is a branch of medicine which studies normal and pathological anatomy and physiology of the ear
either you meant 'without knowledge of an ontology' or 'without teleology'

Its like everything eventually turns into its opposite or something. The liberal humanist project inevitably enslaves the world by reifying and essentialising an idealist conception of humanity. Its kind of similar to the idea of the more you grasp for something the faster it slips away. Humans can't truly be free to becoming if they are trapped in a single mode of being, we must overcome humanism through negation of the negation.

Contradictions are the very core of the modern world. To locate them in the economic and await their fulfilment is only to mandate great disappointment within the smallest things.

>>18501059
Also pic related.

>>18501052
>The liberal humanist project
What? That doesn't really exist in practical reality. What exists is profit (surplus value) and Capital accumulation. That is what moves the world.

>>18501456
You don't think this is slightly reductive..

>>18501468
No.

>>18494678
The Doctrine of Fascism

>>18500668
>>/lit/thread/S18043693#p18044944
Very based thread.

>>18501468
Look around you. Right know. Look at those items. How are they produced? What are they?
They are dead labor + living labor + surplus value.
When sold by the factory owner, he took the surplus value, unpaid labor to the workers and put it inside his pocket.
This is the movement of the world. How the world produce and reproduce itself. Not the "liberal humanist project".

>>18501555
What about like...violence? And illegal conspiracy

>>18501573
Most illegal conspiracies are to maintain the rate of profit at the highest level possible. This, or to hide the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

>>18501555
>When sold by the factory owner, he took the surplus value, unpaid labor to the workers and put it inside his pocket.

Gleaning over any other costs that aren't labor-related, of course. Those things just don't exist.

>>18501631
>Gleaning over any other costs that aren't labor-related, of course.
Machines, raw materials. Those are dead labor.

>>18501555
If this were all there were to it you could achieve communism by just starting worker owned companies

>>18501659
Those existed, and exist. However, they cannot compete against Capitalistic companies, for the simple reason that most workers don't have Capital, that's why they are workers, and also because they won't exploit themselves as hard as the Capitalist exploit them. So they will make less profit and disappear.
A certain Robert Owen did this in the 19th century.
However, apparently, since Capitalism is becoming more and more competitive as time passes, it doesn't really work anymore.

>>18500620
>>18500872
not him but I think what he's getting at is the progressive idea of "tolerance of everything but intolerance" turns out to become social darwinist in practice; the names he mentioned have a paradigm of progress that will leave behind anyone who doesn't hop on the wagon. Thus the reference to social darwinism. From an ecological perspective anti-racism and welfare still amount to earth rape and could be argued are a distraction from degradation of the natural world. Consider that progressivism is only possible in developed nations.
See "The System's Neatest Trick"
let me know if i'm onto something guy, I really liked your post

>>18501769
That still doesn't really address the specific points about racism and social darwinism. Progressives accept anyone if they repeat the dogma, if anything they have a tendency to go after demographics that a social darwinist would consider unfit.

>>18500208
they can insist that black is white all they want. they can even insist that black is not a color which can be applied to a piece of coal like this moron >>18500144. there is nothing I can address in that

>>18500492
>don't marxists frame everything they don't like as bourgeois/reactionary?
Marxists like Hegel
>care to give your argument for why you feel comfortable reducing Hegel to the label 'bourgeois thinker'?
I'm not reducing him to the label. but it applies, because his philosophy was based on mental activity of an abstract subject, who could be nothing other than the reflection of the abstract citizen brought to life by the bourgeois revolutionary movement. and because, given this perspective, he was unable to step beyond private property and civil society.

>>18501516
any "doctrine" of fascism is going to be just a source from which to draw ideological rationalizations of a regime whose goal is to violently re-assert order in a crisis-ridden bourgeois state with a dangerous communist movement. and then to pass the national torch back to liberals in a grand style once the job is done. in other words, it won't constitute a non-capitalist criticism. in fact it will always heavily rely on the favourite bourgeois instrument and invention: a modern nation-state based on a mythical history, whose goal is to mobilize interclassist association for the benefit of the highest class and its pawns.

>>18501555
>he took the surplus value, unpaid labor to the workers and put it inside his pocket
emphasizing the miniscule amount a capitalist spends on personal consumption over the part that he re-invests, perpetuating capital, is a typical moralizing leftoid move. I wish capitalists actually pocketed a large part of the surplus-value, because in that case capitalism wouldn't last a year

>>18501555
Do you really not know how liberalism, capitalism, protestantism, and the enlightenment are related?

>>18501852
Do you really pronounce on an ideology without even reading its texts?

>>18501468
>You don't think
they do not

>>18501852
>emphasizing the miniscule amount a capitalist spends on personal consumption
That's literally the luxury industry. An entire industry whose consumers are mostly successful Captalists, extracting surplus value from wage workers. I just checked thanks to you, the luxury worlwide value is estimated at 281 billions dollars. That's not small money.
>over the part that he re-invests, perpetuating capital,
That's true, a Capitalist re-invest most of his Capital in order to increase production. However, in doing that, the value of his factory increase. So he becomes richer, even if he doesn't enjoy this increase in value directly, through consomption of luxury goods. Each time he re-invest, sure he doesn't enjoy the money, but he becomes richer.

>>18501871
>Do you really not know how liberalism, capitalism, protestantism, and the enlightenment are related?
Yes, the development of commodity, and then Capitalism (16th century), led to liberalism, protestantism, and the enlightenement.
I don't want to hear about jewish or masonic conspiracy. Because the development of productive forces, it's necessities, creates conspiracies. Not the other way round. Base determines superstructure, not the other way round.

>>18501832
The anti racist beliefs touted by progressives are subsumed by those in power leading to surface level reform that maintain the aristocratic class. Progressive industrial globalism still rests on cheap labor in "less fortunate" countries, net result is still social darwinist despite openness toward different races in developed nations.

>>18501940
>openness toward different races in developed nations.
Diminish wages by increasing the wage workers on the labor market. Even without entering supply and demand dynamics, a mexican illegal migrant in america, or an african in europe, accept to work for a small wage than a native.

>>18501940
Just because they're hypocrites does not mean the people in power aren't also true believers. Hypocrisy is a human constant. They just think capitalism and philanthropy is the best way to alleviate poverty.

>>18501972
Data shows the wage suppression theory to be largely false.

>>18501973
>Just because they're hypocrites does not mean the people in power aren't also true believers.
They are true believers of cheap labor that's for sure.

>>18501986
Data produced by liberals

>>18501938
>Because the development of productive forces, it's necessities, creates conspiracies. Not the other way round. Base determines superstructure, not the other way round.
That's exactly what I was getting at. Liberalism is justification for capitalism, taking it to its logical conclusion it reinforces capitalism. Expanding "human rights" subjectifies and incorporates people into capitalism, the opposite of what communists want.

>>18501988
See:
>>18501986
They are very welcoming of other races into their strata.

>>18501938
If all superstructure is produced by base that includes your critique

>>18501986
Explain to me how increasing the number of wage worker on the labor market doesn't diminish the price of labor. That would contradict the law of supply and demand.
If you mean wage doesn't decrease, i would reply that it doesn't increase since decades, when it is suppose to. So virtual suppression. Also, the rate of exploitation increased.

>>18502009
Ad hom

>>18502029
You really trust liberals to report honestly on the effects their schemes have on workers lol

>>18501986
post data

>>18498157
here's your (you) so you can shill cryptocurrency on that basis.

>>18502042
Not an argument.

>>18502011
>Expanding "human rights" subjectifies and incorporates people into capitalism,
You know who said that (in on the jewish question)?
Marx.
>>18502023
Of course. It's coherent. At one point, the mode of production creates it's own contradiction. Both material (tendency of rate of profit to fall) and ideological: abolition of commodity and wage labor.

>>18502061
Have fun believing whatever liberals tell you to swallow then

>>18502061
yes it is
he's saying that they wouldn't self incriminate?

>>18502072
>swallow
homophobia detected

>>18502042
Prove economists are part of some elite conspiracy, or far better yet, refute the actual arguments.
>>18502057
https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-immigrant-workers-depress-the-wages-of-native-workers/long

>>18502098
It's hilarious that all you have to do to make commies carry water for liberals is implicate muh racism

>>18501973
You can only be so much of a true believer when your life and wealth is created by the system you purport to dislike... that's why I mentioned surface level reform: tweaking the parameters of a failed system will never fix problems inherent to it. True belief in progressivism doesn't stop the consequences of the ideology. He (correct me if i'm wrong) isn't saying that progressives today are covertly racist, rather that their actions carry on from a tradition that once was racist and continues to affect people of other nations adversely. This is aside from the beliefs that come out of their mouths or are in their heads.

>>18502162
What is the point of affirmative action from a purely capitalist perspective? There is none

>>18502098
There doesn't have to be a conspiracy for individual liberal economists to produce the same work and have the same arguments. It would be completely natural considering they have the same base assumptions and its in their interest to do so.

>>18502098
>https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-immigrant-workers-depress-the-wages-of-native-workers/long
>Immigration has a very small effect on the average wages of native workers.
What does that mean, a very small effect? An official study done in the 2010s in france concluded that 1% more immigration had an effect of 1% less salary. 1% on an entire country is sure a small effect for an individual worker, but for Capitalism as a whole, and the total amount of salary saved, so converted into profit, it's considerable.
Again, mass immigration is not so much about decreasing wages, but making them stagnate through time, when not having mass immigration would make the wages increase.

>>18502162
Their actions do comport with their beliefs in some concrete ways. They think they should fix their problems at home before they fix other nations and so on, which is mental gymnastics sure, but still when boomers die I fully anticipate some of their more radical proposed reforms such as a department of antiracism to take hold. Marxists argue unless you change the mode of production you're not really changing things, but Marx himself arguably saw capitalism as a perpetually revolutionary system.

>>18502170
>What is the point of affirmative action from a purely capitalist perspective?
Diversion from class struggle.

>>18502170
Surface level reform. Again, the beliefs they hold are betrayed by the system that such reforms rest on. In context: money for affirmative action has to come from somewhere.

>>18502098
Really, do you think there was a conscious conspiracy against Galileo by the heliocentrists, or do you think it was in the interest of people employed by the church to affirm that they were the center of the universe? Its really not complicated.

>>18502198
I am not arguing from Marxism, but I would agree that capitalism (as we have it today) is perpetually revolutionary in the sense that relatively minor changes will occur. A department of antiracism will be funded by exploitation of foreign and domestic peoples.

>>18502189
Economists have the class interest of other intellectual workers. You're just assblasted they lean right, so you make them out to be uncredible pawns of the bourgeoisie, when you almost certainly hypocritically rely on liberal sources for much else.
>>18502190
That's just one study, this is more of a meta analysis, and it says they may tend to increase wages in the longer term.

>>18502202
They're proles, so it's not in their interest according to you, so you're forced to tack on the grand epicycle of false consciousness. It's still just an ad hominem.

>>18502245
They're priests producing state religion compliant propaganda

>>18502227
>you make them out to be uncredible pawns of the bourgeoisie
I didn't say that at all. Economics and Marxism are operating on different grounds. You wouldn't go to specialist in cellular biologist a general question about zoo animals.

>>18502262
>neo-Gnostic messianic/millenarian apocalypticist accusing others of being in a crypto-religion

>>18502273
>Marxism isn't economics

>>18502245
> according to you
Why do you make these retarded assumptions? There wasn't even a proletariat in the 1600s. Besides that, individual interests and class interests are different things and people work against their class interests for short term benefits all the time.

>>18502298
All I'm seeing is a lot of excuses to avoid making actually evidence based assertions.

>>18502296
yeah just like alchemy isn't chemistry

>>18502290
Literally what on earth are you talking about?

>>18502296
>Political economy is the study of production and trade and their relations with law, custom and government; and with the distribution of national income and wealth. The earliest works of political economy are usually attributed to the British scholars Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo, although they were preceded by the work of the French physiocrats, such as François Quesnay and Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot.

>In the late 19th century, the term "economics" gradually began to replace the term "political economy" with the rise of mathematical modelling coinciding with the publication of an influential textbook by Alfred Marshall in 1890. Today, the term "economics" usually refers to the narrow study of the economy absent other political and social considerations while the term "political economy" represents a distinct and competing approach.

>>18502307 exactly

>>18502315
Just saying Marxist chiliasm is an intolerant quasi-religion which explains a lot.

>>18501516
The Answer nobody wants to hear

>>18498162
>ruling class is the prevailing ideology
This is the exact reason why communist movements are so suspicious. The only liberation the proletariat desires is the one that is handed to them by the bourgeoisie. As a class they have no desire to transcend bourgeois society, they are perfectly comfortable within it as long as they get some concessions from the ruling class. That being the case, why do communists fight so hard on behalf of a class who don't really give that much of a shit?
>but muh soviet union
The soviet revolution was based on a small minority taking power on behalf of the proletariat, which lasted for a while until the ruling class decided they'd rather be capitalists after all.

>>18502333
Oh lol I'm not a Marxist. Actually I dont belong in this thread at all, I'm posting very low effort stuff and will now depart

>>18502302
You are making a category error, there is nothing to prove.

>>18502376
Political economy is broader than mainstream economics but is still to do with economics. You're splitting hairs to deflect from having a fact free ideology.

>>18502385
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q

>>18502501
Didn't watch. What's the socially necessary labour time of a work of art?

>>18502501
the bigger an industry is the more labor it uses? this is supposed to prove the labor theory of value?

>>18495548
>It’s not hard, he contradicts himself very often.
I'm pretty sure he was aware, he just called it dialectics

>>18494678
uhhh Spengler

kinda

>>18502505
Your doing it again.
My statement is "a car in motion has a velocity v= ds/dt"
Your question is "where is the car"

Can you see how this is nonsensical and not within the scope of the argument? SNLT isn't about individual commodities its about production in aggregate. If you wan't me to tell you where the car is you have to tell me the starting point and direction and then I can answer you, but it has no bearing on a statement about velocity.

If you wan't to know the SNLT of "a" work of art you need to know the inputs for that piece of art. If you want to know the SNLT for the art industry in general its going to be a variable relationship to the aggregate of its inputs that changes over time, so that is going to be a function, not a specific integer value.

>>18502505
The embodied labour power content. The labour power content is determined by the realisation of the commodity. Duh. Read volume 1

>>18502639
ya but have you read dianetics by l. ron hubbard? until you have, can you really say all the value isn't produced by body thetans? i don't think you can. come back when you've read dianetics.

>>18494678
MacIntyre basically argues that Marx is a libtard at his core.

>>18502612
But I thought SNLT determined value which is crystalized and congelated into the commodity. So it's perfectly well formed question to ask what SNLT was for a single commodity. In any case, what I was really asking is how do you determine the SNLT when it's so variable, depending on the artwork in question, it can take hours or years, and seems to have nothing to do with the price whatsoever. This is not exactly a settled question within Marxist thought either, as some argue art is not even a commodity.

>>18502650
Come on don't be retarded on purpose. You have to actually understand something to refute it. Can you really not understand that making things takes work? Its basic physics. If you don't like calling it value because it triggers you convert it to joules or calories or corn or onions idgaf.

>>18502664
>and seems to have nothing to do with the price whatsoever.
It doesn't. Did you think it did?

>>18502677
Yes value is supposed to determine equilibrium prices, is it not?

>>18502664
Art is a commodity when made by wage labour speculatively for sale. Duh.

SNLT congeals in production but is realised (and thus valorised) at exchange. Also Marxist political economy is flow and totality over period focused. Not micro. Pixar congeals value then realised it later.

>>18502671
so you think there's a vast right-wing conspiracy in academia to discount the labor theory of value? you actually believe this?

>>18502696
The discipline specifying claims of economics are an attempt to avoid labour theories. It isn’t a conspiracy: it’s the history of economics separating from political economy.

>>18502708
>it’s the history of economics separating from political economy
what is this supposed to mean

>>18502696
>>18502202
>>18502189

I don't think economists consider the labor theory of value because has nothing to do with their field.

>>18502717
they don't consider it since it's been discredited since the 19th century

>>18502341
The working class is meant to be destroyed just as much as the capitalist class; in the same way that the goal of abolitionism was to destroy both master and slave. The idea isn't that the working class is good or universalizing being a worker, in communism there would be no class alienated from their labor and means of production.

>>18502714
When a new field of science is founded it usually takes one of two prevailing theories from the preceding field as an assumption and builds from that. So when biology was founded it took certain assumptions from physics, and then later when physics made breakthroughs biology has to go back and account for its initial assumptions. Economics is a specialty discipline that deals with prices and is still in its infancy. Its similar to how freshman physics students are introduced to the principles with point mass objects that don't exist in reality, but when they deal with real problems in actual space and time they become exponentially more complex and entire sub-fields with their own rules.

>>18502722
False.

>>18502745
so basically you're saying that the 19th century economics marxism is based on is wrong and they should go back and account for this fact? why bother, the soviet union is gone, no one cares.

>>18502751
cope

>>18502694
Didnt answer how there can be an average time for works of art as a class of commodity and how that's then reflected in price when Rothko's are worth millions. The majority of Marxists would seem to disagree with you calling the latter not a commodity. What about the value of your data to advertisers? What's going on there?

>>18502780
Do you not know how averages work?

>>18502714
Political economy is the study or critique of value. Economics is the study of price.

The original field is political economy. Economists found utilitarianisms failure in value to be so threatening given SNLTs critique of value that they took their bat and ball and made up a new game where they won the value debate by specifying it as an assumption

>>18502780
>Rothko
Handicraft non commodity
>Pixar
Commodity

>>18502837
>the true value of art is somewhere worked out by an average somewhere between minutes and decades

>>18502861
This is a minority view.
>Western Marxism has since the 1930s has been characterised by factional debate, but one thing that has gone almost completely unchallenged is the thesis that art has been commodified. The art market is a very substantial global trading operation and so, if you measure commodification by the presence of markets in certain goods, then the argument for art’s commodification appears to be a safe bet. Once this is established it is a short step to more expansive theories of reification, culture industry, spectacle, real subsumption and so forth, in which it is not only the objects of cultural production that are commodified but also the subjects who experience them

>>18502877
Western Marxism is a non praxic academic Marxism. This renders its debates suspect. Consider the critique of frankfurters in h cleaver reading capital politically.

>>18502881
>Western marxists are secretly bourgeois agents sewing confusion
Another epicycle. What do non-Western marxists have to say on it?

>>18502865
I don't know why you are pretending to not understand and keep going back to prices. LTV has nothing to do with what you are talking about at all. Its a demonstration that society as a whole has to have a division of labor. You can't have scholars without farmers or everyone would starve. That's what it is about. Like I said before you can convert it to calories, corn or onions if you want.

The SNLT for art is whatever it costs society in manpower/hour to have someone making art instead of doing anything else. If one onions bean is worth 10 calories and it takes 2000 calories for an average man, I think you can do the math, but thats besides the point.

Its really simple, is the bottleneck to how many onions can be harvested in an hour measured in money, or is it manpower? Value == manpower, not price. Price is subjective and follows supply and demand. Marx literally says this.

>>18502897
>However, in volume 3 ofCapitalhe argued that competitive prices are obtained from values through a 'transformationprocess, whereby capitalistsredistributeamong themselves the givenaggregatesurplus value of the system in such a way as to bring about a tendency toward an equal rate of profit,r, among sectors of the economy
And still no answer on what the average time to produce a work of art in our economy is.

>>18502920
>And still no answer on what the average time to produce a work of art in our economy is.
Why don't you interview some artists and ask.

reminder that "socially necessary labor" is just back door fascism

>>18502930
If it's so opaque how does society as a whole work it out?

>>18502897
the limit of how many onions can be harvested is the land. quesnay was right all along. all value comes from the land. whether it's a machine a or a dude harvesting it is irrelevant.

>>18502946
Through the market. Are you one of those fucking dipshits who think a book named "Capital" is about communism?

>>18502950
No, I'm just asking questions.

>>18494678
Read Divini Redemptoris about condemnation of communism and Rerum Novarum about condemnation of wild capitalism. So you'll understand that Economic liberalism paved the way for communism.

>>18502951
BASED AND GEORGE PILLED

>>18502950
This doesn't make sense, especially if prices and value are unrelated, by what mechanism does it detect the SNLT, which is how society as a whole has already apportioned it's available man hours

>>18502985
Why are things cheaper when I buy in bulk or wholesale?

>>18503084
I can think of a some reasons: cost of individual sales, rewarding a loyal customer, encouragement to buy out their stock. What's the Marxian explanation?

>>18503110
I don't mean for an individual purchase. Those are reasons why a specific product might be cheap on a given sale. Why is wholesale in bulk cheaper than buying the same product at retail in general? The labor input demanded is lower in wholesale than retail.

It would be much easier to prove Marx wrong by agreeing with his assumptions and challenging the conclusions from within his own logic instead of trying to fight against physics, but for that you would have to read Marx.

>>18494678
Bakunin.

(No, Stirner doesn’t count here)

>>18503260
If it's so easy to defend, how come my very basic questions go unanswered? Lel at claiming it's just physics. And the SNLT would remain the same in bulk purchase.

>>18503296
SNLT is post fact determined by realisation EVEN IN VOLUME ONE.

ONLY REALISED LABOUR POWER CONTRIBUTES TO VALUE. THUS SOCIALLY NECESSARY.

shit Icecreams are impossible to sell.

>>18494692
No, he didn't. He postulated that a revolution would occur when the contradictions of capitalism became too much for the system to ameliorate.
He made no definite prediction on where it would happen.
But he was wrong on the root cause, he thought revolution would be a byproduct necessarily of increased contradictions, but it turns out that decreased capacity for ameliorating them is more likely to spark revolution.
I.e. he thought revolution would happen because the proletariat would become aware of their exploitation, because the exploitation would become too naked and obvious, but actually it came aobut because the ruling class stopped paying for bread and circuses.

>>18503267
Stirner doesn't count anywhere. He's literally only known because Marx dedicated a chapter to owning him.

>>18503594
Provide the quote from volume 1 then that shows it's realized at point of sale, because that's not how I remember it, although I'm admittedly very rusty. And you keep sidestepping the rest of my posts.

>>18503637
German ideology was first published in the 1930's

>>18503678
And nobody gave a shit about Stirner from his birth until 1930.

>>18503686
Wrong, he probably influenced Nietzsche. No one but autists read German Ideology.

>>18503714
>Probably
Lol.
Nobody read Stirner, nobody reads Stirner, nobody gives a shit about him. His main cultural cache is "Spook" becoming a meme a couple years ago.

>>18503716
I read Stirner B)

>>18503637
All that was soundly refuted in advance though.
No, he doesn’t count here because Stirner isn’t being specifically noncapitalist or nonliberal. He just points out the spooks there. A good critique of Marx, but it doesn’t fit OPs criteria is all.

>>18503716
Well he sure seems to get under the skin of online Marxists. Stay shitter shattered.

>>18503667
Because you’re rusty as fuck and acting tendentious. I’m currently alienating my ontic potential in exchange for means of subsistence so you’ll have to wait on a cite mate.
You constantly reduce to single time single point examples which isn’t how we play. It’s the analysis of a reproducing social system. You’re also talking with three people

>>18503857
>I’m currently alienating my ontic potential in exchange for means of subsistenc
Surely this is an astronomical cope? In what period of human history were people ever not alienating some higher principle of being for practical reasons of sustenance

>>18503857
I know it's meant to be a view of the social totality, but Marx did try to describe mechanisms, for example the transformation of values to prices, which a poster before said wasn't a thing. I don't think it's unfair to ask about obvious examples where his theory of value seems to break down. Like your online data, another point that was ignored.

>>18503637
Marx spent an entire book just shitflinging because he couldn't actually refute Stirner.

>>18503731
Au contrair, you seem to be the one upset.
>>18503728
Lol stop lying.

>>18503911
I've read both the German and English
Marx will never be a real philosopher

>>18503908
>*shows up in China in the 1920s*

Look... you gotta check out this guy, Stirner. He's like chaos magick for leftists. He says things like, that which I can keep belongs to me, but real things are fake, in an idea of the world I just made up. Ah...

>Chinese guy: This is very relevant to my life, thank you.

https://youtu.be/YOZxZ3BIcWc?t=476

With a little critique and a humor (well, I’m laughing) this little piece fits the bill

With a little critique of tankies and a good amount of humor (well, I’m laughing) this little piece fits OP’s bill.

>>18503891
Stop being a shit cunt

Also many accounts of peasantries see them as self fulfilling.

Chapter 1 you stupid cunt
> So far no chemist has ever discovered exchange value either in a pearl or a diamond. The economic discoverers of this chemical element, who by-the-bye lay special claim to critical acumen, find however that the use value of objects belongs to them independently of their material properties, while their value, on the other hand, forms a part of them as objects. What confirms them in this view, is the peculiar circumstance that the use value of objects is realised without exchange, by means of a direct relation between the objects and man, while, on the other hand, their value is realised only by exchange, that is, by means of a social process. Who fails here to call to mind our good friend, Dogberry, who informs neighbour Seacoal, that, “To be a well-favoured man is the gift of fortune; but reading and writing comes by Nature.”

Rusty my arse you haven’t read

>>18503891
You act like no one has ever though of these things before.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/10/30/should-tech-companies-be-paying-us-for-our-data/
>By engaging with content on social media platforms, you feed the algorithms that have made these tech giants the most powerful platforms for advertising. Brands are able to target specific audiences with unrivaled accuracy because many of us have willingly shared immense amounts of data on who we are, where we are and what we like.

Sharing memes is labor. You sign a ToS to DO IT FOR FREE. You don't even have to be a commie to know that.

>>18504293
Fair dinkum. I've just got a mind like a colander. I do still recall many of the more specious aspects, much to the chagrin of Marxoids everywhere. Fun fact, he discusses Perth in volume 1 too

>>18504307
>Forbes
Lol
>sharing memes is labor
Maybe, in some retarded sense, but certainly not WAGE labor is it? How on earth does SNLT apply? You guys seem perturbed when I merely ask you to fill in some very basic details.

>>18504325
Yeah you can import anything but not the social relationship. That’s the perf one.

Also chapter one and the chapter on pricing labour power go over how much of this is historical and thus temporary. Not absolutes necessary by ontology.

>>18504342
The price of Russian spammers food and rent. Jesus. None of these things function as commodities outside of the sale of them. An NFT is worth the coal. A pushed Nazi meme is worth the Russian spammer wages. You shitposting is a post scarcity communist art work.

>>18501852
>they can insist that black is white all they want. they can even insist that black is not a color which can be applied to a piece of coal like this moron >>18500144. there is nothing I can address in that

What do you suppose would determine the "values that it develops for itself"? Abilities and needs even perfectly mirror supply and demand in purporting themselves "thermodynamic", "an excess here will implicitly resolve into a lack there if only the superfluous bodies would disappear". Both ignore, or perfidiously desire the results of, the fact that Economic thermodynamics is absurd, that the superfluous bodies are the only thing maintaining the illusion of a thermodynamic Economy, and that without them one would only return to/arrive at - again, Marx's utopia is simply prehistory "correctly" recapitulated, the very thing people rightly deride Ted Kaczynski for - the polar opposite: nothing BUT induced demand and Munchhausen by proxy. My God.

>>18500686
I think I get what this anon >>18500620 is saying.
So, you replied that: because progressives don't identify as social darwinists it wouldn't make sense to call them that.
What the [>686] anon then replied was, in a confusing but digestible language, the means by which modern progressives adopted that type of thought and retoric: made by NWO agencies (like the Bilderberg group, or World Economic Forum, among others) through the use of technology (by which 686 frased "ideas find their own suitable vehicles by information and lack thereof", this being the adoption of an idea created by Moldbug which he describes ideas as being viruses, and that left-wing ones, since they are created in urban spaces, spread faster and among lots of people, which is why progressives always win the culture war)
What [686] didn't explain is *why* they created this retoric and thought, to which I'd argue it is for the growth of capital. This is on the progressives (also known as the New Left):

"The sexual revolution brought about by the New Left has, in fact, aided in making capitalism more international, less constrained by social pressures and more capable of chalange than ever before.
The sexual libertaion of the left has meant declining birthrates and the complete integration of western women into the capitalist structure for exploitation.
The rejection of classical leftism has meant an end for workers solidarity and agitation for the working class, and facilitated the replacement of the industrial labor jobs with a mass of easily replaceble work in the service and manajerial sectors.
The advocacy for anti-racism and the deconstruction of nationalism, has led to an opening of borders and increasing avalibility of cheap labor for capitalists to undercut their native workers.
The social radicalism of the New Left has been accepted and integrated into the capitalist system.
A deal with the Devil was made: the Left was given its liberation, its destruction of tradition and its sexualized culture; the capitalists gained a mass of easily pacified consumers without loyalty to their kin or any belief system which is fundamentally at odds with the ruling logic of capitalism. The universalism of the left has facilitated the globalist corporatism of late capitalism.
Through the useful idiots and cynical opportunists of the New Left, the capitalists found another way to revolutionize production and expand into uncharted territory, hitherto blocked off by traditional concerns of morality or national interest. The result has been a transfer of wealth from ordinary europeans to an increasingly small number of capitalist and a complete apathy of a mass of citizens, now mere consumers who have been reduced to a bovine kind of existence, with the constant provision of cheap consumer goods, necessary material comfort and an ever increasingly sexualized culture."

I hope this makes more sense.

>>18504562
This is so silly. It's not "the left" that overthrows capitalism, it's the workers. And they didn't do that, probably because capitalism was benefiting them, you know? They had decent jobs, stability, cars, houses. Why would American workers in the 1960s tear that up for some communist revolution? The left-wing radicals in the 60s were middle-class college kids and their views about things were considered pretty extreme.

Was there was some right-wing force in the 60s resisting capitalism? Bullshit lmao. What are you? Some kind of commie son of a bitch? You deserve to get your teeth knocked out for talking about the "capitalist structure of exploitation." I think you're making excuses for why you don't want to get a job, you lazy bum.

https://youtu.be/SHi8osKQzYA

>>18504598
>It's not "the left" that overthrows capitalism, it's the workers
1. this was how the NEW LEFT (which are different from Left or Old Left), substituted economic revolution into a sexual one, which was exploited by capitalists
2. "the workers" haven't done shit yet, in terms of a left wing revolution: it's almost always (I can't think of an exception, maybe you can provide it) made by international bugmen (like Lenin). The intelligentsia does the revolution not the workers.
>Why would American workers in the 1960s tear that up for some communist revolution?
Which is why I said NEW LEFT which, because of post-modernism is totally compatible with capitalism. You seem to be forgetting that these movements also appeared in other European countries (e.g. France)
>Was there was some right-wing force in the 60s resisting capitalism?
If by right-wing you mean third positionist types, that would be the New Right and emerging neo-fascists (in Italy for example there were still terrorist attacks up until the 80's, called Years of Lead, you might've heard of it)
>Some kind of commie son of a bitch?
no
>I think you're making excuses for why you don't want to get a job
I work for the betterment of my ethnic community, not some dirty international jew, who looks to outsource capital from my nation.

>>18501521
Based.

>>18501883
fascism is a practical movement, the details about how it's rationalized are irrelevant to pronouncing on it. and those rationalizations can never go beyond caricatures and exaggerations of selected facets of bourgeois ideology anyway: it's completely about the conservation of bourgeois society in its practice, so there can be nothing new about it theoretically.

>>18501924
>I just checked thanks to you, the luxury worlwide value is estimated at 281 billions dollars. That's not small money.
which is over 3x less than just the US military spending. you can cut all the luxury consumption and replace capitalists with lower paid bureaucrats -- capitalism will remain untouched. this is the essence of leftism: have the air of criticizing capitalism while making sure you're not actually criticizing it.

>>18502296
yes, Marxism isn't economics. Marx:
>Just as the economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class, so the Socialists and Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class.

>>18502307
you've got it backwards. chemistry was a criticism of alchemy, Marxism is a criticism of political economy. but even then the analogy doesn't work, because political economy was (relatively speaking) decent up until Ricardo and only then regressed into alchemy, which culminated with the "marginal revolution"

>>18502341
>As a class they have no desire to transcend bourgeois society, they are perfectly comfortable within it as long as they get some concessions from the ruling class.
they do, as organizing independently in the fight for immediate concessions shows them that they need to keep going further to secure their gains, up to the moment when they experience a real pushback and see that the only real choice is either to give up or to conquer political power and reorganize society on a new basis.
>why do communists fight so hard on behalf of a class who don't really give that much of a shit?
communists are only the most advanced section of that same class, because conscious of what I said above. they know that the fragmented immediate struggles can't really be "won" with any long-lasting effect if they don't escalate and converge into a global struggle for political power.
they are the brain of the class, so you can't really say that the class doesn't give a shit. it's just that sometimes when you get knocked down really hard, your body doesn't feel like getting up for some time, even though your brain already knows you have to.

>>18502985
>by what mechanism does it detect the SNLT
production of a commodity requires a certain amount of SNLT, sale of the commodity yields an amount of money that commands a certain amount of dead and living labour.
if the sale price commands significantly more labour than the SNLT, rate of profit is over average and capital flows in, bringing the price down
if the sale price commands significantly less labour than the cost, then the commodity can't be reproduced and the price must go up

>>18504717
He meant the classical political economists, it's insane hair splitting to declare Marxian econ non-economics.
>capital flows in, bringing the price down
What

>>18504741
>it's insane hair splitting to declare Marxian econ non-economics.
"Marxian econ" is economics, but it's separate from Marxism and contrary to Marx. and it's only "insane hair splitting" if you see economics like a platonic ideal, completely detached from historical/political reality. taking this reality into account, economics is a category within the division of mental labour of bourgeois society, whereas Marxism is a theoretical reflection of a revolutionary movement upending this society.
>What
competition. why are all the economics hobbyists always so clueless about basic business? (rhetorical question)

>>18504804
Ah yes Marxist theoreticians are magically free of the false consciousness. Maybe you and liberals are both corrupted and wrong, ever think of that? To shit on Marxian economists doing real work while you're here hanging out with fascists, that's just yet another sectarian split. How are we meant to take you people seriously if you, the self appointed leading lights of the proletariat, can't get your story straight?
>competition
I'm sorry, I'm afraid you'll still have to explain.

>>18504717
>this is the essence of leftism: have the air of criticizing capitalism while making sure you're not actually criticizing it.
We must abolish commodity and wage labor. How's that for not criticizing Capitalism?

>>18504961
Well, technically you can still use slavery.

>>18494678
Marxism is Christianity in decay.

>>18504863
>Ah yes Marxist theoreticians are magically free of the false consciousness.
not magically but through a concrete historical process
>Maybe you and liberals are both corrupted and wrong, ever think of that?
abstract, logical possibility of being wrong always exist. but there's nothing really to "think" of that, because that judgment doesn't have any actual content
>To shit on Marxian economists doing real work while you're here hanging out with fascists, that's just yet another sectarian split.
there's no split, those people chose academic career over communism from the beginning. any real work they might incidentally do is overshadowed by the mountain of worthless polemics, of distorting Marx, or of working to divorce his critique of political economy from communism to make it palatable to bourgeois academia, transforming it into an expedient for leftists politicians who need to namedrop Marx from time to time to keep their cred.
and there's no fascists here, just basement-dwelling larpers. the bourgeoisie has learned how to incorporate fascist elements into liberal democracy after WWII, so maybe the full retard fascists that inevitably end with their glorious leader committing sudoku or getting Gaddafi'd won't be needed ever again
>How are we meant to take you people seriously if you, the self appointed leading lights of the proletariat, can't get your story straight?
why would i care about your opinions?
>I'm sorry, I'm afraid you'll still have to explain.
if there's a branch of production with rate of profit of 15%, while the general average is 10%, capitalists will invest in that branch. but they will have to cut prices, because there will now be an increased amount of the product that the market needs to absorb, and because they have to conquer that market share.

>>18495096
>I haven’t read Stirner but I’m pretty sure he would describe this as a spook.
This sums up /lit/ perfectly

>>18501521
This. Retarded lit always argues about stupid shit instead of paying attention.

Zizek

Fabio vighy

>>18503959
based

>>18503959
obviously, since communism sublates of philosophy

>>18505881
The man hours have already been put in by the time the product is put to market. Your mechanism would thus act retrocausally. SNLT seems mostly determined by the technical and would seem to have nothing to do with market signals or rate of profit, it's completely obscure how the market would know what the average time to produce a work of art is. Forgive me if I'm still confused.

>>18495669
based spookbuster

>>18508002
we're not talking about the market immediately changing the SNLT, but about why prices that stray away from the SNLT (assumed constant, if that helps) must be brought towards it over time. and the answer is: because SNLT signifies the part of the total labour that the production of a commodity requires and its sale price signifies the part of the total labour that the capitalist will have available in order to reproduce the same commodity again. if he has too little of it available, then he's simply unable to reproduce the commodity over long-term. if he has too much, then other capitalists are quick to line up to help him get rid of that burden.

>>18508002
>rate of profit
Because the whole point of the demonstration has nothing to do with one piece of art, one commodity, one business, one sector, or one industry. The rate of profit falls across history with the introduction of new technology because its competitive and profitable to adopt technology that reduces the amount of people you have to hire to produce an item. You no longer have to have a factory with 10,000 workers all weaving linens by hand when you have steam powered looms, and if you don't upgrade you can be priced out of business into bankruptcy by someone who is a smarter investor than you.

The point isn't that a linen is cheaper to buy for the consumer, but that it takes less work for society to produce linens with steam power than by hand. This is true for everything that a new technology touches, when trains are invented and goods don't have to be driven to market by horse, prices fall across the board. Internal combustion, industrialization, computers, and even minute improvements in the production process all have the same effect.

>>18509025
>>18509176
Maybe I'm thick as pigshit for still not getting it but it's still unclear to me how either of these processes objectively determine what the average time to produce a work of art is, which to me is a very simple question. Also, on prices, how is it that there is a range from $2 to $600,000,000 for art if there is some equilibrium price determined by the SNLT?

>>18496738
>a kind of centrist Biden liberalism is an acceptable system.
By your reason trump's ideas were markedly better you retarded fag

>>18509261
>it's still unclear to me how either of these processes objectively determine what the average time to produce a work of art is
I already stated it about as simply as possible, twice. I can't do much more. I'll try one last time: when a capitalist sells a commodity, he receives back money commanding a part of the total labour of society (= price) that's equal to the part of the total labour of society required for the re-production of that commodity (= value). this must be so, because otherwise capitalists wouldn't be able to reproduce all the goods and services needed for society to continue living. half of them would have to constantly operate at a loss.
>how is it that there is a range from $2 to $600,000,000 for art
price of "one-shot" pieces isn't determined by value but by completely incidental factors. for mass-produced stuff, it does come down to differences in SNLT, mediated by differing costs of materials and costs of the productive techniques.

>>18501456
>What exists is profit (surplus value) and Capital accumulation. That is what moves the world.
Differences in technology, biology, geography and tradition from a given people is what "moves" (changes) the world.

>>18513184
>Technology
Capital accumulation is technology. When a company accumulates Capital, it increase it's R&D, and built, create new technologies. The evolution of laptops, for example, are literally Capital accumulation throught decades.
>Biology
Chinks are taking the leadership, Sir Aryan, in case you didn't noticed.
>Tradition
Capitalism is literally standardizing all cultures, all traditions. Coca-Cola, McDonald, Hollywood, pop-culture. Facebook, smartphones. Welcome to the Capitalistic Globohomo world. Get out of the basement if you don't believe me. Go to any megacity around the world. They all look the same, and life in those megacities is roughly the same.

>>18494678
any book about the freemasons

>>18513184
the spread of capitalism erases all those differences. more and more becomes subjected to the simple imperative of using money to make more money, be it sheep herding in Ireland by a descendant of the Celts or banking in the business district of Abuja by a descendant of some nomadic tribe.

>>18494730
Lmao that is literally what Marx believed

I was not talking about the modern age, but throughout all ages. I was taking away the reductivist marxist belief that it all comes down to classes going against the dominant ideology.
>>18513223
>Capital accumulation is technology
I would agree - if it was the modern age. In other times technology adapted to the others I mentioned: biology, geography and tradition (tradition would have its metaphysics, body of Law, etc.)
>Chinks are taking the leadership, Sir Aryan, in case you didn't noticed.
??? I don't get this
>Capitalism is literally standardizing all cultures, all traditions. [...]
I know, it's hell.
>>18513535
>the spread of capitalism erases all those differences. more and more becomes subjected to the simple imperative of using money to make more money, be it sheep herding in Ireland by a descendant of the Celts or banking in the business district of Abuja by a descendant of some nomadic tribe.
As I've said, this is one of the worse situations we've ever faced.

>>18513184
>>18514002
the only thing that's reductivist here is your "understanding" of Marxism. development of technology, human biology and geographical conditions all constitute the economic basis that is ultimately historically decisive according to Marxism. and tradition isn't neglected either. some quotes (I could give dozens of them):
>Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. (Marx)
>Once men finally settle down, the way in which to a smaller degree this original community is modified, will depend on various external, climatic, geographical, physical, etc., conditions as well as on their special natural make-up — their tribal character. (Marx)
>According to our conception this technique also determines the method of exchange and, further, the division of products, and with it, after the dissolution of tribal society, the division into classes also and hence the relations of lordship and servitude and with them the state, politics, law, etc. Under economic conditions are further included the geographical basis on which they operate and those remnants of earlier stages of economic development which have actually been transmitted and have survived — often only through tradition or the force of inertia; also of course the external milieu which surrounds this form of society. (Engels)

>>18514002
>reductivist marxist belief that it all comes down to classes going against the dominant ideology
Current relations of production you meant. The dominant ideology is a frankfurter not a reductivist concept. Reductivists centre the forces and relations of production as the transcended social relationships.

>>18494678

>>18514219
Engels dedicated a chapter of Anti-Dühring to defending Darwin against Dühring

>>18514139
I truly appreciate the quotes.
>development of technology, human biology and geographical conditions all constitute the economic basis that is ultimately historically decisive according to Marxism.
Thank you, my conception was wrong. But let us remind ourselves that who I was responding to said "What exists is profit and Capital accumulation" is the mover of the world; these being the causes, and not the consequences, of technology, biology, geography and tradition.
>The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.
This is my main quarrel with Marxism; it wanting to eliminate traditional ways of thinking (religion as an example), and living.

One last thing, would a Marxist believe in hierarchies? I'll give a quote as to why I asked this:
>"The elimination of all social and political inequality,” rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions,” is similarly a most dubious expression. As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen. The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old “liberty, equality, fraternity,” a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm

>>18514193
>Current relations of production you meant.
yes, thank you

>>18514240
so?

>>18514219
>>18514265

Darwin was essentially a proto-marxist. Look again, its called "Origin of the Species", not "Origin of the Individual".

>>18514244
>All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

Its a prediction, not an endorsement. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

>hierarchies
>Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

>In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Even anarchists believe in hierarchies of competence, like parents stopping children from running into traffic, or asking a master craftsmen to teach you his craft. Even for them, the problem is with unjustified hierarchies not hierarchy generally.

>>18511722
I think a better course for you would be for you to say the one shot art has no SNLT at all and that SNLT only applies to generalized commodity mass production. But you then have boundary cases like a photographer selling a limited run of prints. Still, if the art can be priced totally independently of labour time, and you stop just short of saying "subjectively", it remains to be seen why all commodities could not be priced in this way, and the rest would be simple supply and demand, where if the market price doesn't recoup the labour and other costs, the capitalist simply withdraws it from the market. Also, with globalization, which Marx was already well aware of, SNLT starts making less sense as well, as the perspective of the whole society could be global, not just national. And I'm unsatisfied with the answer given earlier that the value of your data is from the SNLT (food and rent???) of the "Russians" running the data centre or whatever.

>>18514639
>The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped off all superstition in regard to the past. Earlier revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to drug themselves concerning their own content. In order to arrive at its own content, the revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead. There the phrase went beyond the content; here the content goes beyond the phrase.
[https://revolution.chnm.org/items/show/304]
Looks like an endorsement of "progress" and abandonment of tradition. And very much prescriptive.

>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement.
If a man can produce more and be thus rewarded more for his labor, he would hold more resources. If he has more recourses he becomes more influencial and powerful. There will come a time (it can be him or his children), in which if a time of crises arises (an earthquake, for example) he will rule as to distribute the resources. And what's to stop him from having power from thereon? By then the proletariat will not have control over the means of production and production itself. This was a very likely hypothetical example which I drafted in less than 2 minutes. I nonetheless agree that the present hierarchy (the financial) is based on usury and illegitimate.

>>18514918
I'm [918].
So Marx's poor justification is that it is because of capitalism that this exists:
>But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm]
He seems to have forgotten the biology of man right after saying that.

should I read the wealth of nations before or after I read capital?

>>18514996

Before.

Before.

>>18504562
Correct. Progressivism is an instrument of western liberal hegemony. It exists to facilitate globalization and exploitation of the earth under the guise of diversity and equality of all peoples. This is not a Marxist project as people claim, however it is consistent with Marx’s prediction that “all that is solid will melt into air” as all social structures today (gender, family, race, culture, nationalism) are revolted against under the banner of Progress.

>>18515406
Worth mentioning that this social revolution against tradition and commodification of all peoples is done through a Nietzschean cycle of ressentiment, again not being directly based on his ideas but consistent with his predictions of how history would turn out. We are the most comfortable generation in human history but also the most despaired and anxious, hence we combat false specters of oppression (homophobia, racism, misogyny etc) to simulate a feeling of power and moral righteousness

>>18515406
Contemporary progressivism is hardline preservationist for nonwhite cultures, see: cultural appropriation and even new segregation efforts. It's simply antiwhite and you people can't just admit that for some reason.

>>18515432
It is anti-white, because Liberalism doesn’t need white people anymore. Liberalism wants to absorb every person in the world, and they need to sacrifice white identity in order to expand international capital and immigration. The fact that it’s anti-white doesn’t make it any less liberal at its core

>>18515432
>>18515499
The white man is the most expensive wage worker in the world. What's more, he is, or at least was, class conscious.
I'll let you drawn your own conclusions at to why the white man has to be replaced.

>>18515811
Whites are infamously class unconscious.

>>18515823
Paris commune (1871). Revolutionary Catalonia (1936). Nestor Makhno (1920), Budapest commune (1956), Occupy wall street, Los indignados, Yellow vests etc...

>>18494678
Lyotard’s

>>18515951
>didn’t even mention 1905 or 1917
Jesus.

>>18515432
Its really not anti-white. You're just an autistic faggot too hung up on white grievances politics
>>18515499
You fucking white nationalists aren't pure white yourselves, and your ancestors certainly were immigrants - who the fuck do you idiots think you are - you don't own the land you colonize you snow monkey

>>18516165
Wow your anti white tirade really convinced me there are no such thing as anti whites.

>>18516172
Lel

>>18516172
I don't want to convince you because I know you are a shilling reactionary. You're fucking loser who's opinion does not matter in the slightest. You can speak your mind as much as you want, but if you try push that ethno-nationalist non-sense, and attempt to harm people to put your genocidal, batshit stupid beliefs in into practice, law enforcement will deal with you swiftly and brutally with extreme prejudice - as they should. Being anonymous on 4chan doesn't protect you from being found either, FYI.

>>18516198
>can’t spell
>just seethes
This is the power of idpol?

>>18516198
Your opinions don't matter either you know, you're just repeating the opinions of powerful people, but you aren't one of them.

>>18516198
It's reactionary and murderous to simply not hate your own race is it? Demonstrably false. You're so hopped up on the antiwhite koolaid you're deferring to the cops you ostensibly hate.

>>18516213
Nigga, you literally are in this entire thread crying about white people being oppressed for hours. This is my second post.

>>18516215
Powerful people who agree with me, and not you, which is what matters. Not even the Republican Party is retarded enough to play your fucking non-sense openly.

>>18516222
>doesn’t know how the poster count works
Anon, go back.

>>18516229
>here's why it's a good thing I'm a grovelling sycophant

>>18516217
Nobody is anti-white, you're just retarded. You should have been bullied more in school, and driven to suicide. You're waste of life and peoples' time. You come to 4chan to vent anonymously about how resentful you are that you have lost the cultural war, and now all you have is infantile thoughts of violent revolt. You're fucking pathetic, and nobody will ever take you seriously, nigga.

>>18516229
Buddy it's not them agreeing with you lol, it's you agreeing with them because you're servile. They dont even likely actually believe these things anyway, they just find it useful that you and other slaves believe them.

>>18516236
>Damage controlling this much
This is embarrassing, anon. You must be a fucking zoomer. You retards are a cancer on this site. Kill yourself immediately.

>>18516249
Nigga, the math doesn't work out for you. I don't care what you say. I will never take you seriously. You are a retard. Don't waste anymore of time.

>>18516243
You need to calm down. These scary “white nationalist incel terrorists” are overblown. Fascism itself has died many years ago. I even study a fascist at a postgraduate level. I doubt you could make it that far in the world, idiot. And I’m sure your bitch arse wouldn’t speak this drivel to me in person. “Muh Nazis” is boring and the vast majority of people don’t care about World War 2 anymore, especially after almost a century.

>>18516242
Dude, just keep acting tough online. You will never do anything. You will never have the power to enact your beliefs. Law enforcement will just scrape your dead body off the ground.

>>18516257
You could die right now and it would have zero impact on society or history, you don't matter, you're a slave repeating what he's told to.

>>18516243
Either a ton of denial if you're white or a dissembling ethnic activist. Either way, gaslighting doesn't work here, you people are getting bolder by the day, arrogance will be your undoing eventually.

>>18516268
I'm not acting tough for simply mocking you, you're the one expressing vivid, violent fantasies and projecting.

>>18516266
>i am syrian
his mom was a german catholic and he was raised by armenians

>>18516314
>[Jobs’] biological father, Abdulfattah 'John' al-Jandali (Arabic: عبد الفتاح الجندلي), grew up in Homs, Syria, and was born into an Arab Muslim household

>>18516268
Incredible, you went through the stages of
>X isn't happening
>X is happening but not in the way you think it is
>X is happening and it's good, actually
in record speed

>>18516243
>Nobody is anti-white
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2020/08/01/systemic-anti-white-bias-in-media/

>>18514244
>This is my main quarrel with Marxism; it wanting to eliminate traditional ways of thinking (religion as an example), and living.
it doesn't "want" to eliminate them because it understands history doesn't proceed according to what it "wants". it only recognizes that capitalism is eliminating them and that there's no turning back of the wheel
>>18514244
what does it mean to "believe in hierarchies"? does this by Engels help?
>Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel. Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?

>>18514701
>if the art can be priced totally independently of labour time, and you stop just short of saying "subjectively", it remains to be seen why all commodities could not be priced in this way
because they're mass produced in order to make profit. they're subject to a standardization of the production process and to competition.
>Also, with globalization, which Marx was already well aware of, SNLT starts making less sense as well
no, it starts to make more sense because producers all over the world are brought into a single market which enforces a uniform value. before globalization you could have pretty much isolated islands with very varying local values
>And I'm unsatisfied with the answer given earlier that the value of your data is from the SNLT (food and rent???) of the "Russians" running the data centre or whatever.
that wasn't me so I don't know what that's about