/lit/ - Literature

>>18648195
No? Have you seen fucking terrible shit produced by this horrible ideology? Marxists don't even that shit - fuck Capital.

>>18648211
Lol

>>18648215
>Lol
lmao

>>18648218
Can you provide criticism of the book, and not Pol
Pot?

>>18648224
you won't learn anything and if you do you're larping
what do you hope to read?
it doesn't work as economics history or philosophy now take your (You) and go

>>18648195
It is. Marx is brillant but he’s also limited by his narrow reading of history.

>>18648238
I’m not a Communist, but I know it is one of the most influential books in history.

>>18648243
>one of the most influential books in history
the ideology not the books

read the history of the nations it poisoned
unironically wikipedia will tell you more about the books than anyone who claims to believe them

again what do you hope to read/learn?

It's important but very dry, prepare to be assaulted by an extensive look at english grain laws

>>18648256
Have you read it?

>>18648224
>Can you provide criticism of the book
Yes

It’s a base (not based) read for materialists, that think finding flaws in contrived systems of commerce are somehow revelatory.
It was written by someone who, ironically, put too much faith in positivism and science being the cure-all because of the advancements of the age, but is too narrow in context to support anything that so-called Marxists try to extrapolate from the book concerning the modern Globalist paradigm; making it more of a handicap than a help in assessing the problems we face.
Here is the only run down you need:
Capitalism is inherently set up to increase production/profit to the detriment of the workers. Without unions and legislation to combat these exploitations the worker will always suffer - alienation distorts the perception of the workers lot in the whole system and keeps him placated and resistant to his own interests, therefore revolution; a rejection of capitalism is preferable to reform.
But since we understand that there’s more to life than goods, considering we live in one of the most hedonistic periods ever and people are still not happy: you should be able to immediately see that there’s more to the problem than who owns what.

>>18648299
>But since we understand that there’s more to life than goods, considering we live in one of the most hedonistic periods ever and people are still not happy: you should be able to immediately see that there’s more to the problem than who owns what.
But couldn’t this be due to late-stage capitalism?

>>18648256
answer the question anon >>18648298

>>18648256
answer the question anon >>18648296

>A totally materialist conception of nature and man implies determinism—an implication faced by Lucretius. If human thinking and feeling are nothing but mechanical responses to external stimuli, which are themselves determined by the laws of physics, then all of life and history are predetermined. Lucretius postulated that particles of matter "at quite uncertain times and uncertain spots" must "swerve a little"27 in order "to break through the decrees of fate."28 Epicurus before him had rejected determinism as more oppressive than religious beliefs (since gods could at least be placated or appealed to for help)29 and ridiculed the determinists,30 but had never faced up to the implications of a thoroughly mechanical conception of materialism. Lucretius' resort to an arbitrary postulate of unpredictably swerving atoms indicated one of the sore spots of the materialistic system of philosophy.
>Centuries later, Marxian materialism would avoid determinism by rejecting mechanical causation in favor of a dialectical conception of causation as interaction among thinking beings with some measure of autonomy.
Claiming "dialectics", within materialism, is retarded.

>>18648195
Great amazing and boring certainly worth a read but you cannot read it, it's so boring.

>>18648299
>But since we understand that there’s more to life than goods, considering we live in one of the most hedonistic periods ever and people are still not happy
sure, that's why communists oppose the society in which as much human activity as possible is subject to the imperatives of replicating value. this arrangement of society is what prevents the freeing of time and the freeing of consciousness, which are necessary conditions for an all-around human development.
modern "hedonism" is a consciousness of a subject who's an instrument the process of accumulation of capital on the demand side: the more commodities produced, sold and consumed, the greater the mass of profit. but the consumption of the overproduced stuff falls mostly to the middle classes and bourgeoisified workers. the proletarians, on their side, continue to struggle to meet basic needs, because higher wages enabling their overconsumption would themselves be a deduction from the mass of profit.
the immediate program of the communist party is not matching the consumption of the proletarians to that of the overconsuming strata, but putting them all on an equal level _below_ overconsumption, eliminating production of needless and anti-social products, and drastically reducing the length of the working day
>you should be able to immediately see that there’s more to the problem than who owns what.
yes, the problem is ultimately not in who owns what. abolition of property is not an end upon itself. it's just that society in which humans are subjugated to the needs of value accumulation rests on private property in industrial means of production, and the one can't be transcended without the other

>>18648376
this equivocates between determinism on the level of physics and fatalism on the level of social history

>>18648510
it's not boring if you have genuine interest in it (some of the repetitions in vol. 2 excepted...). it's just that the vast majority of people here don't have it

>>18648195
If you read, skim the first 6 chapters, it's extremely dry

>>18648195
If you have to ask it's not for you

>>18648631
>determinism
>fatalism
it's the same thing

>>18648754
it's not the same thing. according to fatalism, the end result is the same regardless of the actions taken by humans.

Subjective theory of value BTFO marxists

>>18648211
cringe

>>18648195
definitely yes, atleast the first two volumes

>>18648919
It depends on what area of his life you're looking at. Up until the early 1860's he thought the Proletarian revolution was *literally* about to happen. So, "the proletariat will revolt indepent of the actions made by the capitalists"; very fatalist.
By the time he starts writing Capital he tries to cope and creates international movements, saying that capitalism could continually renew itself unless overthrown.

>>18648211
>Marxists don't even that shit
kek

>>18650013
if he was a fatalist, he wouldn't have written the Manifesto. you say that only in the 1860s he "tries to cope and creates international movements", but this is the level of misinformation that can be debunked by quoting the first lines of a Wikipedia article:
>The Communist League was an international political party established on 1 June 1847 in London, England.

he always believed the outcome to be dependent on the activity of proletarians and communists.

>>18648195
Depends on what you know about the period - are you after a conceptual framework or analysis of conditions (it's certainly useful as a historical document)? I posted this response in another thread:

Marx derived his conception of the LTV from David Ricardo's On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817) the conclusion of which is that
>the capitalist appropriates in the form of profit the surplus which the worker produces over and above what he receives back as wages
simple enough. Completely appropriate in 1848-67, when the factory proletariat have been completely dispossessed, alcoholism and disease are rampant in their slums and Benthamite utilitarianism is inadequate in addressing their needs/wants. If you go back and contextualize Marx, you find that burgeoning socialists (Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Robert Owen, Engels) were not anti-industry. How could they be? The preconditions for take-off (Rostow's model) during Britain's Industrial Revolution necessitated a new sociopolitical outlook to accompany the land-transfers and labor-flights in a post-agrarian landscape. To better understand Marx/Engels, It would help to be familiar with
>Adam Smith (1776)
>Thomas Malthus (1798)
>Adolphe Quetelet (1835)
but it's not necessary. Having said all this, I don't recommended reading Das Kapital - instead, read Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875/91).

Some commentators on Marx have argued that at the time he wrote the Grundrisse, he thought that the collapse of capitalism due to advancing automation was inevitable despite these counter-tendencies, but that by the time of his major work Capital: Critique of Political Economy he had abandoned this view, and came to believe that capitalism could continually renew itself unless overthrown.[28][29][30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy#Marxism

>>18650152
I forgot to add that I'd like to apologise on my claim: "creates international movements, because of coping"

>>18650152
>>18650186
those two views are equivalent with regards to fatalism. the inevitable collapse of capitalism would still always be mediated by revolutionary proletarian action, so that case too can be described as "capitalism could continually renew itself unless overthrown". Marx never held a view that capitalism could collapse without human intervention, because ultimately it's just a mode of social organization, not an inanimate object or a machine.

>>18648195
Ya probably (if you're autistic)

>>18648993
>Subjective theory of value BTFO marxists
It depends what you take as the central claims of Marx. You can totally make an argument on subjectivist grounds that capitalism is unstable/doomed/less than optimal outcomes/etc. It's where Marx dovetails with lolbert claims about management of a private profit system being impossible or the state must wither away, etc that you constantly get BTFO by reality

>>18650152
I've read most of Marx and I don't think that's right. He obviously always thought capitalism was historically transient and all social systems had their own limits (you can't really distinguish between a overthrow/collapse easily).
Grundrisse was unpublished stuff from the 1850s. Marx is very butthurt about Proudhon around that time and aggressively wants to dunk on him (in that unpublished stuff he takes especial aim at funny money schemes and such). Capital was rushed to be published in the 1860s, Engels basically told him it would be gobbledygook to most people and told him he should structure it differently but he didn't care. If he thought capitalism was going to collapse in the 1850s you'd think he'd not be worried about people prolonging capitalism and if he was sure of things being conducive on politics in the 1860s than he wouldn't be wasting time on unpopular academic works.

>>18648299
>we live in one of the most hedonistic periods ever and people are still not happy
Isn't wage-slavery to blame?

>>18650634
>>18650646
I cherish your replies. I'll go study Marx now.

Bump

if you're interested in a scientific (materialist) understanding of political economy then Capital is a must-read, OP. before Marx classical political economy, with Smith and Ricardo, had served the interests of the bourgeoisie. with Capital Marx completely BTFOs bourgeois political economy, which is why porky has had to resort to idealism starting with Marshall. your typical idealist economist cannot, or will even outright refuse to, answer where for example equilibrium prices or business cycles come from, or why the economy crashes at least once every decade.

>>18648211
t. has read zero Marx

>>18648510
the first three chapters of vol 1 are an absolute beast, and is where most people give up. it gets better around chapter four. but yeah, reading Capital is a slog. the bile helps it go down easier.

>>18650096
Critique is good. I also recommend reading "Wage-labour and Capital" and "Value, Price and Profit". all three are not terribly long reads, about 30 pages each
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

>>18651165
>the first three chapters of vol 1 are an absolute beast, and is where most people give up. it gets better around chapter four.
And then it gets hellish with volume 3 ;-)
> or why the economy crashes at least once every decade.
Internet bubble (1999), subprime crisis (2008), Corona virus (2020) :s

>>18651338
>And then it gets hellish with volume 3 ;-)
oh dear. I'm 2/3rds through vol 2, which is a surprisingly pleasant read
>Corona virus (2020) :s
yeah and this one hasn't even really got going yet. it's going to get worse
I'm a bit upset that Biden is in office and might successfully stabilize things

>>18648195
Yes. Also check out Michael Heinrich.
https://mronline.org/2017/11/17/150-years-of-capital-with-no-end-in-sight/

>>18651165
>Read my stupid propaganda because I'm a loser like Marx who couldn't get a job
You're just spewing non-sense. We have enough case studies, and failures from communism regimes, to show it its all garbage. You hid behind books because your fantasies only work on paper. Nobody is interested in your dogma, your unfasifible non-sense.

>>18651338
the crisis was already starting before the virus.

>>18651450
if nobody is interested in it then why be so butthurt?

>>18651338
>>18651482

>>18651450
>implying marginalism is falsifiable
nice meme anon
things like LTV are perfectly falsifiable. just remove all labour and see what happens to profits
as I said originally, there's a reason why bourgeois political econ ditched materialism in favor of idealism

>>18651482
>the crisis was already starting before the virus.
That's what i meant ;-) Autumn 2019, phantom menace of negative interest rates, on /biz. January 2020: the Corona virus appears.
Nobody connect the dots, except Marxists. I really wish we didn't have the monopoly on this.

>>18651600
>He thinks LTV is when you use labor
Lmao, commies don't know what LTV means to Marx or even economics, you fucking retard. Pushing a rock doesn't mean it has value. Value is subjective.
>materialism in favor of idealism
Marxism is nothing pure idealism. There's no empirical evidence for it, retard.

>>18651600
That image is absolute bullshit. Profit comes from consumers, not from labor. Wage labor isn't exploitation because you need a profit in order to pay wages, and because wages are determined by contracts and competition between producers. Imagine thinking competition is fucking exploitation, that signing a contract means you're being "exploited" when you agreed to work for boss for a specific amount of money.

>>18651600
Modern economics has nothing do with "idealism" though, retard. Economics these days is literally computational empiricism and bound by statistical analysis. Marxism is attractive for people who are mediocre humanities majors who have no idea how economies actually work. Which explains why their policies constantly fail, cause inflation and food shortages.

>>18651835
>Pushing a rock doesn't mean it has value.
Something cannot have exchange value, if it doesn't have use value in the first place.

>>18651506
The retard who posted this graph thinking that this proves the falling rate of profit exists is fucking economically illiterate. NIPA profits fall because the rising capacity utilization of manufacturing. Manufacturing is one of the least profitable business ventures in the United States because its so easy to do - so you have an influx of competitors that drive prices down - which drive profits down due to an oversupply of goods. You are fucking retarded. It makes perfect sense those profits would go down during a boom because manufacturing productivity is up in those times, meaning goods are cheaper since there is a higher supply of them being produced by companies. It is amazing how economically illiterate you commies are - holy shit.

>>18651854
>Wage labor isn't exploitation because you need a profit in order to pay wages
Found the retard of the thread. Congratulation. Marxist who have read Marx will understand.

>>18651934
>NIPA profits fall because the rising capacity utilization of manufacturing. Manufacturing is one of the least profitable business ventures in the United States because its so easy to do - so you have an influx of competitors that drive prices down - which drive profits down due to an oversupply of goods. You are fucking retarded. It makes perfect sense those profits would go down during a boom because manufacturing productivity is up in those times, meaning goods are cheaper since there is a higher supply of them being produced by companies.
You are touching the tendency of the rate of profit to fall with your finger, by saying this, but still don't see it.

>>18651933
Exchange value is a subjective competent of the economy, you retard. So is use value. Even Marxist crisis theory is trash because you just generalize every plunge, and totally decontextualize historical reasons as to why crashes happen. Apparently, the reasons why COVID crash happened are the same reasons why the fuck Great Depression happened according to you fucking retards.

>>18651938
>Marxists
Just call yourself a cultist. Keynes was right - nobody gives a fuck about your gobbledygook bible.
>>18651948
>Goods get cheaper due to competition so capitalism bad
Are you serious? Profits will rise again because companies will have innovate, meet demand when it raises again due to consumption habits or even replace, aging products. Again, what is the problem, retard?

>>18651938
>Marxist
>getting economic theory from outdated books from 2 centuries ago and thinking they're relevant to today
Lmao you fucking retard

>>18651854
>>18651934
>>18651450
>>18648211
>>18648238
why do people who have never read an ounce of marx in their lives feel compelled to interject as an expert on marx?

>>18651982
Why do retards love to appeal to authority; especially an ancient, outdated text that has been refuted by case study by case by every time its between tried in the real world? Why do these mediocre humanities students who never held a job, like Marx, don't even a background in business or even economics, think people should take their or even Marx's economic opinions seriously? You're a fucking clown.

>>18651600
They're equally unfalsifiable FYI

>>18651854
>Profit comes from consumers, not from labor
You'll find most conservatards and Marxists are supply siders. Walk into the Mises Institute and tell them about consumer demand generating profit

>Wage labor isn't exploitation because you need a profit in order to pay wages
Do you mean the wage fund theory? Even mainstream economics dropped that idea by the 1870s

>wages are determined by contracts and competition between producers
>Imagine thinking competition is fucking exploitation
Wages are determined in same way as everything else sold but the claim is that in the aggregate the return to labour is always less than it's full value whereas ownership gets concentrated and more power to set prices.

>>18651971
>Profits will rise again because companies will have innovate, meet demand when it raises again due to consumption habits or even replace, aging products
Maybe the restructuring of the economy might result in decreasing real wages? As manufacturing got less profitable in America other industries like finance and real estate made up the difference with higher profits and the service sector made up for job losses.

>>18651934
I posted it to illustrate that a crisis was coming regardless of covid, not to prove anything about the rate of profit, you mongoloid
>so you have an influx of competitors that drive prices down - which drive profits down due to an oversupply of goods. You are fucking retarded.
I'm retarded because profits fall down in a certain point in the cycle? fascinating
>It makes perfect sense those profits would go down
who says it doesn't? I like how all you morons never fail to mention how illiterate and irrelevant communists are but then you go on butthurt rants that don't even address anything that was said

>>18651949
what a fantastic coincidence that crashes happen every 10 years, but it's always a different cause!

>>18651949
>>18651971
>>18651978
>>18651998
butthurt samefag

>>18651971
>Are you serious? Profits will rise again because companies will have innovate, meet demand when it raises again due to consumption habits or even replace, aging products. Again, what is the problem, retard?
Market saturation.

>>18652022
A decrease in profits isn't a crisis, you fucking retard. Having a higher supply of goods isn't a crisis unless its socialism.
>>18652022
>what a fantastic coincidence that crashes happen every 10 years, but it's always a different cause!
They don't happen every "10 years" though, retard. And, its not shocking with all the shit that goes on in the war from riots, disease, war, human mismanagement of resources that declines. Imagine being such a fucking retard you think the world is just some static bubble where stability is where, and there's no intrinsic chaos to the world. Talk about being a fucking child.
>>18652016
Mises rejects empirical evidence for their takes, so, they are on the same level of Marxists. Why is Mises even a thing when he just stole his "theories" people like Weber, Bastait and Say?
>you mean the wage fund theory? Even mainstream economics dropped that idea by the 1870s
No? If the firm can't create goods that meet demand for a profit, they will fail.
>Maybe the restructuring of the economy might result in decreasing real wages?
Markets change when more competitors come into the market, yes?
>>18652041
Market saturation is a producer problem. Not understanding why this matters. Yes, under capitalism, companies can make bad decisions. That's why you don't subsidize them, like USSR did, and make them fail or make them change their offerings to decrease it.

>>18652080
>A decrease in profits isn't a crisis
I didn't say it was
>They don't happen every "10 years" though
they more or less do

Human nature is turbulent, and economics reflects this, and the commie so retarded, and surprised that decline happens this shocks them. Amazing.

>>18652110
That's literally what you're arguing you fucking faggot - why are you backtracking now like you fucking sniveling communists worms. Own up to your stupidity.
>More or less
No they fucking don't you retard. You're literally estimating like every economist, and generalizing every crash as if they all happen for the same reasons when they clearly don't. Every crash that happens are due to unique circumstances of the crash. COVID forcing governments to shut everything down isn't the same the fucking sub prime mortgage prime bubble of the 2000s Of course, leave it to a fucking Marxist retard to think these two events are related.

>>18651998
>requesting that someone actually read an author before discussing their works is an appeal to authority
>don't even a background in business or even economics
kek I'm literally doing an econ phd at a T10

>>18652080
>Market saturation is a producer problem.
The more the offer get massive, due to increase of productivity, the more price get cheap, the more markets get saturated. It's not 5D thinking.

>>18651816
You don't have a monopoly on making up wild conspiracy theories or refusing to take meds. /pol/ schizos share those traits with you.

>>18652181
>You don't have a monopoly on making up wild conspiracy theories or refusing to take meds. /pol/ schizos share those traits with you.
Except for /pol, it's the jews. For us Marxist, it's the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. In 10 years, you'll understand. Each at it's own pace.

I would suggest the brainlets in this thread actually read Marx before voicing their stupid opinions about his work

>>18651835
>le mudpie argument
literally addressed on page 3 of Capital

>>18651854
>Wage labor isn't exploitation because you need a profit in order to pay wages, and because wages are determined by contracts and competition between producers
contracts and competition don't magically make wage labour not exploitation. we can quantify the rate of exploitation. profit literally can't happen without it

>>18651864
and yet marginalism still can't explain where prices come from

>>18651998
>maybe if I call my interlocutors uneducated NEETs then I'll suddenly be right!
pathetic
also I run my own business. what now, dum-dum?

>>18651949
>Apparently, the reasons why COVID crash happened are the same reasons why the fuck Great Depression happened according to you fucking retards.
it's almost as if capitalism is inherently unstable or something. I wonder if anyone's written any books about this

>>18652080
>Having a higher supply of goods isn't a crisis unless its socialism.
>Imagine being such a fucking retard you think the world is just some static bubble where stability is where, and there's no intrinsic chaos to the world
imagine being this market cucked. porky has taught you well, anon

>>18651949
>Exchange value is a subjective competent of the economy
Lol, I don't even give a fuck if you are a bot, or a retard. Okay, perhaps i should answer: people exchange equivalent labor time, when they exchange goods.
>Apparently, the reasons why COVID crash happened are the same reasons why the fuck Great Depression happened according to you fucking retards.
Like they say, you might be on to something genius.

>>18652315
>it's almost as if capitalism is inherently unstable or something
NoNoNo anon, Capitalism is very stable. The 2000 crisis was because of the internet bubble. The 2008 crisis was because of the subprimes mortgage crisis. The 2020 crisis is because of the deadly and very dangerous corona virus. If we had those crisis, it was because of causes external to Capitalsm.
Crisis don't happen each 10 years due to economic cycles. That's paranoia. It happens because of the internet, or vilain traders, or viruses.

>>18648376
Claiming “materialist” philosophy exists is naive. Read Kant, nigga.

>>18651165
Can someone redpill me on the FRoP? Where do you people get all these meme charts from?

>>18648195
Yes, because if you read it, you'll have read more Marx than anyone in this thread.

Bump

>>18652479
and the alternative is a system that never works?

Bump

>>18651165
Based falling rate of profit bro

>>18652479
>not realizing it happens because of sunspots

>>18652645
>The historical transience of capital
>The downward trend in the rate of profit since XIX century
>Esteban Ezequiel Maito
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/55894/1/MPRA_paper_55894.pdf

>>18653232
>t. historylet

>>18654137
So the final happening starts in around 30 years or so. I'll probably be dead by then.

>>18648195
yes

>>18652128
>That's literally what you're arguing you fucking faggot
quote me where I argued that. I even posted a chart which has falling profit margins in 2012-2019 but no recession recorded there. is that your proof that I'm claiming "A decrease in profits is a crisis"? you're a raging clinical retard
>Every crash that happens are due to unique circumstances of the crash.
and a new set of unique circumstances just happens to reappear every 10 years or so! how retarded.
crises are clearly cyclical, regular, i.e. lawful, not random.
>COVID forcing governments to shut everything down isn't the same the fucking sub prime mortgage prime bubble of the 2000s
I already illustrated that the crisis was coming regardless of covid. and the two aren't comparable: the mortage bubble was how the crisis _appeared_, whereas covid was what happened _alongside it_ and compounded it (because anarchic capitalist organization is ridiculously unfit to deal with global emergencies, which requires real planning).

>>18654300
assuming a linear regression is the correct model, yes. I doubt it is, and I see no reason RoP can't asymptotically reach zero rather than actually hitting it at some point. but perhaps this doesn't matter - once it's down to around 1% then ROI is longer than a human lifetime. this means a qualitative change rather than a purely quantitative one

>>18652128
oh yes every recurring crash since like the 1810's is just a fucking coincidence
retard

>>18648195
Nobody from the baby torture tribe is worth listening or reading. Once they stop denouncing themselves with circumcision, you may consider one.

How do you refute that you have to deny your human nature to have them in your country? Share in their denial? You have to legalize morbid and disgusting baby torture rituals to welcome their savage tribe in. HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU INVITE VAMPIRES TO YOUR HOUSE WHEN IT TAKES SO MUCH EFFORT?

>>18654379
>just plan your economy
Everybody has done that. Generations aren't the same, and the changes you make to the generations via cultural and societal institutions, will have more repercussions than you can figure out.
Every tower of Babel has been planned.

>>18654397
>>18654402
take your pills anon

>>18654430
Stop torturing babies kike

>>18654440
>he doesn't know communists are against bronze age desert cults
sad!

>>18654440
Fun fact: That pic has less pain involved than circumcision.

>>18654447
>He doesn't know communism is a bronze age savage desert cult with modern technology
Disgusting and shameful. I'm related to you? I share existence and being with those such as you?

>>18648195

no it's incredibly boring

>>18654300
Yes. Probably the final crisis will happen around 2050-2060.
However, things will get rough before, it has already began, since 2008, and the 2020 massive financial crisis. 2030 alone will be a massive shitstorm, way bigger that anything seen before.
Only way to avoid this is abolishing commodity.

>>18654804
>Only way to avoid this is abolishing commodity.
I don't see it happening any time soon. I think if this thing is going to kickstart itself then the proletariat will have to be reborn in blood.

>>18651165
redditpol go back

>>18654922
>t. brainlet

>>18654804
I stumbled upon something relevant just after reading this comment
https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xw3x/new-research-vindicates-1972-mit-prediction-that-society-will-collapse-soon
>The study was published in the Yale Journal of Industrial Ecology in November 2020.... It concludes that the current business-as-usual trajectory of global civilization is heading toward the terminal decline of economic growth within the coming decade—and at worst, could trigger societal collapse by around 2040.

>>18655080
?
I just don't like redditpol,I didn't say anything about marx
>>18654137
>>18652315
More redditpol
Go back

>>18648376
I agree that dialectical materialism is stupid but I don’t see why materialism necessitates determinism.

>>18648631
>the proletarians, on their side, continue to struggle to meet basic needs, because higher wages enabling their overconsumption would themselves be a deduction from the mass of profit.
Unless you’re defining proletariat as extreme poverty, then this just isn’t true. If you’re in a developed nation most everyone has access to a slew of consumer goods.

>>18648631
>sure, that's why communists oppose the society in which as much human activity as possible is subject to the imperatives of replicating value
So every society that’s ever existed? You’re delusional.

>>18655083
The thing is, these retards probably don't understand the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. So they explain with some stupid reasons like overpopulation, rarefaction of ressources, pollution, etc..
>>18655996
Some societies are not about Capital accumulation.

>>18656023
>Some societies are not about Capital accumulation.
Name one civilization that’s ever existed where people weren’t trying to get more $ or other resources. Maybe medieval peasants but that life hardly seems ideal.

>>18648195
Of course it's worth a read but can we please stop having this thread

>>18656070
Huterrites. Israeli Kibbutzim. And yes, medieval natural economy. based on basic exchange value, but without capital accumulation.

>>18656097
THIS, HOLY FUCK CAN WE STOP HAVING RETARDED ARGUMENTS ABOUT MARX?

>>18648195
You already know the answer is yes, it's one of the most influential books in all of history. You're just asking this as bait for controversy.

>>18655989
>If you’re in a developed nation most everyone has access to a slew of consumer goods.
even in developed countries millions of working people still barely afford basics such as food and rent, let alone raising a family.

>>18655996
>So every society that’s ever existed?
no, how and why would communists oppose societies that don't exist anymore? their opposition is a result of a practical struggle of the working class, and workers don't practically struggle against feudalism or whatever, because it doesn't even exist anymore.
besides, in pre-capitalist societies people weren't subject to the imperatives of capital valorization outside occasional small urban manufacturing centers.
the generalization of this condition is exclusive to capitalism. hence there weren't masses of "hedonistic" overconsuming middle-classes back then. mass manufactured commodities were mostly consumed by small ruling classes themselves.

>>18656268
>even in developed countries millions of working people still barely afford basics such as food and rent, let alone raising a family.
Sure never denied it. It still stands that many working people still have access to many cheap goods.

>>18656116
Sure I guess you can find niche communes throughout history. I guess my point is that you can find advanced civilizations long before capitalism where people were clamoring for more wealth, resources, whatever. So I don’t buy the notion that this is a problem unique to contemporary capitalism.

>>18650634
>>18651165
thank you

>>18656379
>Sure never denied it.
well someone did 2 comments up the chain when they said "this just isn’t true" about my claim about the proletariat continually struggling for basic needs.
>It still stands that many working people still have access to many cheap goods.
first, you can have access to many cheap goods and still barely afford them because your wage is low too, because your rent is high, because you need to buy more things than ever to stay afloat and competitive (a car, a smartphone), etc.
second, I already mentioned the strata of wage-labourers that consume relatively much in my initial comment: the middle classes and bourgeoisified workers. so it's weird to imply that I'm omitting them

>>18656397
it's not niche "communes", but the general condition pre-capitalism. and it isn't about abstract "clamoring for wealth, resources, whatever", but strictly about the individual lives of the majority of the population being subjected to needs of accumulation of monetary value.
and it doesn't even matter if it's unique to capitalism or not. what came before it is irrelevant in practice, because it isn't coming back.

>>18651600
The total economic value I produce for society is incalculable while my income is something I worked for and either agreed to be paid through a wage or gained through my own ingenuity. kys faggot.

>>18651854
The image is bullshit because it implies that workers are being robbed by employers (the green circle is much bigger than yellow). In reality the workers get about 90% of profits, only 10% goes to the capital owners (it works this way because there is MUCH more workers than employers and a single employer can easily give a job - and provide a livelihood - for hundreds of workers)

>>18656500
Depends on how you’re defining proletariat. Plenty of people that don’t own their labor & don’t struggle to meet basic needs. The median household income in the U.S is something like $68000.

>>18656500
>the individual lives of the majority of the population being subjected to needs of accumulation of monetary value.
If it wasn’t money, it’d just be something else. If you live in a commune you’d get the advantage of pooled resources but the disadvantage of greater social control over the individual.

>>18656586
>Depends on how you’re defining proletariat.
more like it depends on what the proletariat is, but sure.
>Plenty of people that don’t own their labor & don’t struggle to meet basic needs.
labour is an activity, it can't be an object of ownership.
I have made very clear from in initial comment about this that when I talk about proletarians, I don't mean all wage-workers. namely by distinguishing the proletariat from the middle classes and from bourgeoisified workers. and also by saying that proletarians are struggling for basic needs. it must've taken a lot of effort to ignore both and pretend I was saying something else.

>>18656612
>If it wasn’t money, it’d just be something else.
yes, such as accumulation of free time or of a variety of engaging activities.
the initial point was that the subjection of lives to the needs of capital accumulation means that the extent and the kind of production and consumption activities is decided by what leads to the maximum growth of the mass of profit, and not by unencumbered human needs and wants.
>If you live in a commune you’d get the advantage of pooled resources but the disadvantage of greater social control over the individual.
there's no social control over the individual if their interests are aligned. and they are aligned when a society isn't directed at satisfying the interests of capital / of a ruling class. once society has the technical basis to get rid of those, the only thing it can be directed at is fulfilling the needs of its members.

>>18655962
>why materialism necessitates determinism
>If human thinking and feeling are nothing but mechanical responses to external stimuli, which are themselves determined by the laws of physics, then all of life and history are predetermined.

>>18656996
laws of physics can ultimately be probabilistic, not deterministic

marx says capitalists separate workers from the means of production, but doesnt government also do that exact same thing to bourgeoisie?

>>18657069
even when the state nationalizes a firm, the capitalist usually gets reimbursed, that is he gets money that he can immediately converted into capital again. but there indeed is a constant tendency at replacing the bourgeoisie in their functions by the state. it just doesn't assert itself very violently right now. Engels has already described it:
>At first the capitalist mode of production forces out the workers. Now it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.

>>18656746
>labour is an activity, it can't be an object of ownership.
>I have made very clear from in initial comment about this that when I talk about proletarians, I don't mean all wage-workers. namely by distinguishing the proletariat from the middle classes and from bourgeoisified workers. and also by saying that proletarians are struggling for basic needs. it must've taken a lot of effort to ignore both and pretend I was saying something else.
This is weasel word play. Marx defined proletariat as those that don't own their labor and so have to sell it for a wage. You claim that capitalism reduces the proletariat to a level of bare subsistence unable to afford basic goods. The existence of "bourgiousified" workers disproves this notion. So what do you do ... you define proletariat as = low-wage worker. It's not surprising then that you find capitalism reduces workers to a life of subsistence when you exclude a vast majority of workers from consideration under the vague ill defined notion of being "bourgiosified".
>initial point was that the subjection of lives to the needs of capital accumulation means that the extent and the kind of production and consumption activities is decided by what leads to the maximum growth of the mass of profit, and not by unencumbered human needs and wants.
And my point is that all societal forms are coercive because there will always be some resource that some have & others don't. Without currency that might just become social status or providing for the group.
>there's no social control over the individual if their interests are aligned. and they are aligned when a society isn't directed at satisfying the interests of capital / of a ruling class. once society has the technical basis to get rid of those, the only thing it can be directed at is fulfilling the needs of its members.
How do you get to a society where everyone's interests are aligned? Sounds like it would require totalitarian levels of social control. And why exactly does everyone have to have the same interest. Sounds like a hellish hive mind.

>>18657147
layers of cuckery

>>18657043
Only in Quantum physics, which is a theory to be falsified, ultimately.

>>18655941
it's OK to admit you don't know anything anon. no one's going to judge

>>18656097
>>18656124
>noo you can't talk about one of the most influential economists of all time

>>18656379
poverty isn't determined by having access to more use-values. it doesn't matter what whiz-bang tech exists if people have to work 80 hours per week to survive

>>18656508
>while my income is something I worked for and either agreed to be paid through a wage or gained through my own ingenuity
keep telling yourself that wagie

>>18656582
>In reality the workers get about 90% of profits, only 10% goes to the capital owners
this is just wrong. workers don't get any of the profit
you also don't know what the organic composition of capital is, or how it affects the rate of exploitation vs the rate of profit
>a single employer can easily give a job - and provide a livelihood - for hundreds of workers
incredibly class cucked

>>18657069
no. the bourgeois state serves bourgeois interests, like maintaining private property and keeping the proles just content enough to not revolt

>>18657307
>keep telling yourself that wagie
Not an argument bum.

>>18657307
>no. the bourgeois state serves bourgeois interests, like maintaining private property and keeping the proles just content enough to not revolt
in that sense, bourgeois serves the proletariats interests to keep the wages running, but it doesnt owe them anything. the real trick is the control, once you are in a state's land you are obligated to act by his rules and get milked dry until state squirts it out once in a while to whatever the hell they want

>>18657159
>Marx defined proletariat as those that don't own their labor and so have to sell it for a wage.
no, Marx has defined it as those who have nothing to lose but their chains.
>You claim that capitalism reduces the proletariat to a level of bare subsistence unable to afford basic goods. The existence of "bourgiousified" workers disproves this notion.
no, bourgeoisified workers are not proletarians. they have a privileged social position to lose that gives them access to crumbs of profits from the bourgeoisie that wants to avoid social unstability. and that's why they assume the interests of the bourgeoisie. they aren't proletarians, because proletarians with bourgeois interests are an oxymoron. the two classes have opposite interests (you can check that in Marx too).
>It's not surprising then that you find capitalism reduces workers to a life of subsistence when you exclude a vast majority of workers from consideration under the vague ill defined notion of being "bourgiosified".
no, the real reason it's not surprising is because of the simple fact that there _are_ millions workers that can barely afford to pay rent, even in so-called "developed" countries (not to speak of other countries).
"all wage workers are in dire poverty" is a strawman you've invented to waste everyone's time. it's a blatant one, because in my initial post >>18648631 I already distinguished proletarians from other strata that themselves either partially or wholly consist of wage workers.
>And my point is that all societal forms are coercive because there will always be some resource that some have & others don't.
this assumes private property. under that assumption yes, I agree
>Without currency that might just become social status or providing for the group.
social status becomes pretty irrelevant if you can't use it to acquire substantial personal wealth and then let it snowball from that point on.
but this is now waaaay beside the point. social status divorced from material power is just respect people have for someone due to their contributions. I don't see how that's even remotely comparable with how capital's profit calculations can hijack and subject to themselves person's entire life activity in a capitalist society.
>How do you get to a society where everyone's interests are aligned?
by abolishing private property
>And why exactly does everyone have to have the same interest.
it's not that they have to have it. it's simply a description of what happens in a non-antagonistic society, where the development of society as a whole is in direct interest of each of its members, because it gives them means for pursuing their individual development. in a capitalist society, on the other hand, "development" only increases the power of capital, making it yet more effective at subjecting people to the constraints of its own multiplicaton in an increasingly totalizing way.

>>18657382
>no, Marx has defined it as those who have nothing to lose but their chains.
You're both wrong, it's relationship to the MoP that defines the classes.

>>18657373
>bourgeois serves the proletariats interests to keep the wages running
no, porky will pay the proles less than subsistence wages wherever and whenever he can. Marx cites factory inspectors' reports for this, and doctors attesting to people dying at age 40 because of a combination of poor nutrition and poor work environments. this happens to this day in places like Bangladesh, and in general whenever there is a relative surplus population available

>>18657406
Isn't that what I said? The proletariat doesn't own their labor & so has to sell it to those that own the MOP

>>18657373
"keeping the wages running" is the opposite of the proletariat's interests, because wage-labour is the relation of their subjugation, whereby they're separated from the means of production and have to work not according to how they want and for their own benefit but according to what valorizes capital the most and for the benefit of capital's growth, making the thing that controls it ever more powerful

>>18657406
having nothing to lose but your chains describes the relation to the means of production: it means that (1) you don't own them and neither do you have a social position that makes their owners share the profits from owning them with you ("nothing to lose"), and (2) that you're kept in a relation of exploitation by those who own them (the "chains").

>>18657409
>porky will pay the proles less than subsistence wages wherever and whenever he can
why do you exclude the state from this though. state is just additional layer of cuckery. you give them your hard work and just expect the result that might or might not come to you. it is a blatant separation of the worker from product. i thought the liberation was the worker's liberation in the first place? in my opinion, the real insidiousness is the ownership of the land itself, be it a state, person or company. the existence of an ownership of the earth and resources is the most absurd thing imagineable.

>>18657373
>>18657433
making the thing that controls them (the proletariat) ever more powerful*

>>18657382
>no, bourgeoisified workers are not proletarians. they have a privileged social position to lose that gives them access to crumbs of profits from the bourgeoisie that wants to avoid social unstability. and that's why they assume the interests of the bourgeoisie. they aren't proletarians, because proletarians with bourgeois interests are an oxymoron. the two classes have opposite interests (you can check that in Marx too).
This just makes the concept unfalsifiable , arbitrary, and almost religious. At what level of income does a person pass over from prot to bourgiousie, $30000? $40000? I can accept that that at a certain level of income people are more averse to change because they fear losing their wealth, but that in no way shows that societal instability benefits poor workers. Nor why only poor workers perspective matters.
>the real reason it's not surprising is because of the simple fact that there _are_ millions workers that can barely afford to pay rent, even in so-called "developed" countries (not to speak of other countries).
"all wage workers are in dire poverty" is a strawman you've invented to waste everyone's time. it's a blatant one, because in my initial post I already distinguished proletarians from other strata that themselves either partially or wholly consist of wage workers.
No all I'm asking is why do you selectively pay attention only to workers in dire straights. The existence of millions of wage workers that can pay rent and afford many basic commodities would indicate that capitalism is doing something right. Moreover the fact that poverty exists in no way shows that the issue cannot be fixed under capitalism or that it would be any better under a different system. I see no reason why a strong wealthfare state and UBI couldn't eliminate poverty.
>this assumes private property. under that assumption yes, I agree
So no conflict ever happens within hunter gatherer groups?
>social status becomes pretty irrelevant if you can't use it to acquire substantial personal wealth and then let it snowball from that point on.
What about cultist leaders? They command a power over their followers that isn't purely monetary. There have been plenty of communes and they are known for having horrific track records of abuse.
>by abolishing private property
Good luck doing that without creating a totalitarian nightmare state.
> it's simply a description of what happens in a non-antagonistic society, where the development of society as a whole is in direct interest of each of its members, because it gives them means for pursuing their individual development
Has never existed and will never exist.

>>18656612
>If you live in a commune you’d get the advantage of pooled resources but the disadvantage of greater social control over the individual.
Well my shit country, france, just made the corona vaccine mandatory to take trains, do sports, go to restaurants, bars, mandatory as well for all hospital personnel, just for working.
If only Capitalism was absolute freedom, i'm not sure i would defend libertarian communism.
The thing is, terminal Capitalism is war (syria, Lybia, Afghanistan, Irak), false flag terrorism, and imaginary viruses, as a mean of control.

>>18657439
>why do you exclude the state from this though. state is just additional layer of cuckery. you give them your hard work and just expect the result that might or might not come to you.
the average prole gives far more to porky in the form of surplus value than he does to porky's state

>in my opinion, the real insidiousness is the ownership of the land itself, be it a state, person or company. the existence of an ownership of the earth and resources is the most absurd thing imagineable.
this I can sympathise with. but the land ends up being controlled by *someone*. you just have to pick your poison

>>18657550
>This just makes the concept unfalsifiable , arbitrary, and almost religious
NTA but this is just how categories work.
>At what level of income does a person pass over from prot to bourgiousie, $30000? $40000?
your class position is determined by your relationship to the means of production. in short, if you have to work for a living then you're part of the working class. if you can make a living just owning things then you're part of the bourgoisie

>>18657550
>This just makes the concept unfalsifiable , arbitrary, and almost religious. At what level of income does a person pass over from prot to bourgiousie, $30000?
no it doesn't. you can't define social and historical relations with mathematical exactitude, but that doesn't mean they're arbitrary.
and individual edge cases are completely irrelevant anyway. communists only need to consider movements of entire classes.
I may not be able to tell whether a certain individual person is a proletarian or a middle class wage worker, but I sure will be able to tell that a mass of proletarians is on the streets fighting the cops while a mass of middle class cucks use the media to urge them to surrender in the interest of maintaining stability of the capitalist state and maintaining its competitiveness against Eastasia's industry
>but that in no way shows that societal instability benefits poor workers
stability of capitalist society is what hurts them
>Nor why only poor workers perspective matters.
matters for what?
>all I'm asking is why do you selectively pay attention only to workers in dire straights.
I don't, I pay attention to all the classes.
>The existence of millions of wage workers that can pay rent and afford many basic commodities would indicate that capitalism is doing something right.
sure. if it weren't, it wouldn't have developed and survived
>Moreover the fact that poverty exists in no way shows that the issue cannot be fixed under capitalism or that it would be any better under a different system
sure, the fact that it exists doesn't show anything, but the reason it exists does: it's necessarily generated by capitalism itself, because a workers wage is a cost to be minimized that takes away from the mass of profit
>I see no reason why a strong wealthfare state and UBI couldn't eliminate poverty.
because they also take away from profit and thus have to be made only as small as necessary for the worker to show up to work
>So no conflict ever happens within hunter gatherer groups?
no systematic conflict remotely comparable to the conflict within a class society, no
>What about cultist leaders? They command a power over their followers that isn't purely monetary.
cults require individuals that are atomized and alienated from society in the first place, and this has its origin in the society being based on universal competition. there's no place for this to develop in a cooperative society.
>There have been plenty of communes and they are known for having horrific track records of abuse.
sure, they are great reflections of the greater society within which they exist
>Good luck doing that without creating a totalitarian nightmare state.
good luck sustaining capitalism without creating yet further totalitarian nightmare states beyond those that already historically existed and to an extent exist still
>Has never existed and will never exist.
it has partially existed in primitive communist societies and it will exist on the entire planet

>yet ANOTHER thread devolves into these shit discussions

>>18657871
hey man, what do you expect? that we would *not* school clueless liberals?

>>18657851
>I don't, I pay attention to all the classes.
But all from the perspective that the working class ought to rise up and be dominant. Why does them happening to be born in a particular class entitle them to violence and to run the entire state? This seems like the exact same logic as the capitalist.
>no systematic conflict remotely comparable to the conflict within a class society, no
Of course there will be more conflicts in societies with classes, but economic class has existed long before capitalism. And I just don't see conflict as inherently caused by private property, as much as it is a feature of every advanced society that has ever existed. There is no escaping it.
>because they also take away from profit and thus have to be made only as small as necessary for the worker to show up to work
Plenty of European countries have a strong wealthfare state and are capitalist. And as far as I know people have not stopped working.
>sure, they are great reflections of the greater society within which they exist
How does Jim Jones or the Amish reflect Capitalism?
>good luck sustaining capitalism without creating yet further totalitarian nightmare states
Pretty much any developed democratic nation. They have problems of course, but to call them totalitarian stretches the word beyond reason.

>>18658105
>But all from the perspective that the working class ought to rise up and be dominant.
nope, nothing I've said depends on such a perspective. I'm stating objective facts
>Why does them happening to be born in a particular class entitle them to violence and to run the entire state?
I make no claims about entitlement. fantasies about who's entitled to what don't change what actually happens
>This seems like the exact same logic as the capitalist.
yes, that's why I don't use it. this is the difference between ideology and science
>Of course there will be more conflicts in societies with classes
"more" is a serious understatement
>but economic class has existed long before capitalism
true
>And I just don't see conflict as inherently caused by private property
persistent conflict on a social scale is born out of private property because private property is the basis for the division of society into classes with contradicting interests
>Plenty of European countries have a strong wealthfare state and are capitalist.
they're entirely dependent on cheap products from countries that lack a strong welfare state and where poverty is prevalent (because you produce cheap products by paying cheaply for labour).
and they themselves have poverty too, despite that. and it's even rising.
>How does Jim Jones or the Amish reflect Capitalism?
by being violent, backwards and superstitious
>Pretty much any developed democratic nation.
the developed democratic nation stops existing as such once you take away all the shipments of cheap shit from a not so developed and not so democratic nation. also, literal nazism happened in one of the most industrially advanced states in the world.
>They have problems of course, but to call them totalitarian stretches the word beyond reason.
I said totalitarian _to an extent_, which even they are. it's just that they've mastered methods of control that leave the subject with a false sense of freedom and _for now_ don't have to resort to open violence on too big of a scale, because the proletarian movement is still recovering from the counter-revolution.
but this is going to be changing with the continuing persistent crises, low growth, and the waning of the US empire

>>18658368
>I make no claims about entitlement. fantasies about who's entitled to what don't change what actually happens
So you don't want a dictatorship of the proletariat? You're keep pretending like you're only making descriptive claims when you're not.
>persistent conflict on a social scale is born out of private property because private property is the basis for the division of society into classes with contradicting interests
I agree people owning and hoarding stuff produces division, but that is inevitable. I don't think revolution and the destruction of the state will get rid of those divisions. Likely would only create a dangerous power vacuum.
>they're entirely dependent on cheap products from countries that lack a strong welfare state and where poverty is prevalent
A fair point. That is exploitative, but workers revolting won't end it. And often these countries welcome the opportunity to trade. Many african countries were happy to accept loans from China for development projects. If one country wasn't doing it, some other would just step in to fill the void and profit off it.
>the developed democratic nation stops existing as such once you take away all the shipments of cheap shit from a not so developed and not so democratic nation. also, literal nazism happened in one of the most industrially advanced states in the world.
Hard to say what would happen. It would certainly cripple our economy which might lead to anti-democratic sentiment. And of course fascist movements can and have happened in developed nations as they can happen anywhere.

If you hire someone, or if anyone hires someone else, to produce a product for them for an hourly wage, where should the profit from the product go?