/lit/ - Literature

>>19612116
Why are you taking sophistry so seriously? You are literally just taking gobbledygook jargon at face value. Marx wasn't even an economist - he was a socioligist i.g. pseudo-science for professional bullshiters.

>>19613761
You contribute nothing to this thread

>>19613784
You're talmudic subhuman who contributes nothing to life. You need to be Rittenhouse'd

>>19612116
>An alternative view [to Lenin], which was supported by early council communists like Rosa Luxemburg and Georg Lukacs, was that any socialist revolution was legitimate in itself to start with, but that the task of the party was to "build" a majority for socialism. That is, revolutionary forces ought to set up the basic structures of a socialist society, and then let those systems be directed by participatory/direct democratic institutions like worker's councils. Contrary to the Bolsheviks, then, one shouldn't "wait" for a majority, but should use whatever means necessary to seize power and reform society along socialist lines.

>Ironically, Stalinism (orthodox Marxism-Leninism) essentially follows the Luxemburg line of thinking in some important respects. Stalinism largely rejects traditional democratic representative institutions in favour of a sort of front of social interests as filtered through party institutions. The reason for this is that socialism is non-negotiable. Socialism, which follows from historical laws, is so necessary that any public resistance must be crushed, not facilitated. Yet the same systems depended heavily on popular mobilizations in their building of socialism, which created a sort of paradox where official Stalinism held that democracy did in fact exist in an advanced form, while at the same time repressing any independent politics.

>Lukacs pointed out very early on that Stalinism has a flaw: The new level of participation in the system promised for the future will probably never come about. That's because there are powerful forces within contemporary society, even one that is revolutionary, that motivate against socialism. The most important of these is the constant reinforce of the logic of the commodity - prices, buying, selling, hoarding, debts and so on. In the neoliberal period this has been seen as part of the process of financialization and numerization of social life. So socialist revolutions reach a limit where the public is being told by the economic structures to be selfish and being told by the government pronouncements to be altruistic, and it isn't hard to know which side wins in everyday life.

>>19613842
>After the failure of the events of the 1960s, and with the failure of the Fordist pact that had preceded it in the Western world, there was a convergence towards more classically bourgeois economics and the rise of financialization. Corresponding to this was the condition known as postmodernism. Postmodernism included the rise of new social movements that displaced class as the unchallenged center of leftist political subjectivity, such as race, gender and sexuality. With the fracturing of the subject, which had, of course, never been fully unified, new arguments arose among socialists about how to structure disagreements. The main way this happened was through the rise of Eurocommunism, which emphasized Gramscian modes of politics that saw the possibility of building majorities through parliamentary means. This was seen as an adaptation to the disappearance of the traditional homogenous working class. Leftist parties across Europe and much of the world reconstituted themselves as defenders of liberal-democracy and committed to various coalitions with social-democratic parties. While the entire left weakened in the absence of strong Keynesianism, those groups that had focused on revolutionary leftism became tiny sects. Later, when Latin American populists started to label themselves as socialists, much of their work was still within the basic coordinates of social-democracy, with only limited experiments outside the core system of representation.

>As social movements developed, many took on anarchistic practices, drawn from a variety of sources, which emphasized horizontality and the possibility of renewing direct democracy through respectful deliberation. This culminated in the various people's campaigns against corporate globalization at the turn of the century, facilitated by new technologies and distrust of traditional institutions that seemed captured by neoliberalism. As old line Stalinist parties faded away in much of the world, there was a rise of smaller parties that emphasized connection with social movements and modeled their alternative as one that was deeply participatory. Old-style central planning became disliked by most of the radical left, while alternatives that focused on worker's councils and other systems of popular input became popular.

>>19612116
Marginalized folks have every reason to trust progressive bourgeoisie and managerial strata over fascist white settlers who want them dead.we have every right to deplatform fascists and reactionaries and class reductionists ensure safety for marginalized and vulnerable members of our communities. We have every right to demand the destigmatization and normalization of sex work and mental illness, decolonization prison abolition family abolition the sexual enmancipation of children and an end to white supremacy and the gender binary.

Instead of pandering to the most backward secrors of the working class we should lead the way along with the most advanced ones, black and indigenous people, and queer/ trans sex workers. Sex workers not the straight male labour aristocracy who are at the vanguard of the proletarian movemen, women and queer people taking the means of production into their own hands by refusing to perform unpaid sexual and emotional labor for white men. The real class struggle is not in factories but in womens bodies. work is a threat to patriarchy the capitalist system itself it is radically queer because it goes against the idea that sex is for the reproduction of the nuclear family and the patriarchal ideology of romantic love. Its a means for workers to take the means of production into their own hands here and now to abolish the distinction between the private sphere and the public, between work and pleasure and self expression. To break down the walls of lily white christian suburbia into a brave new world of pleasure rebellion and freedom. Yes it is true what they say about us queer postmodern neomarxists We are gonna groom all your daughters to be whores and your sons to be nympho trans sex workers.

>>19612116
What is the proletariat if not the eternal cuckold of history? Have you talked to any actual proles? They are dumb as rocks and fully deserved to be exploited and throd upon by capitalism. The true ubermensch is the bourgeoisie libertine leaching off the blood of the third world, partying like the marquis de sade backing divisive pedophile lgbt identity politics and gladio nazi ops alike just for kicks because it drives the proles insane.

>>19612116
The term "proletariat" is ill-defined. The average person hears it and thinks
>aggregate of wage-earners, like me.
>>19614120
Shitty Sakaist bait.
>>19614131
Retarded Rightist bait.

>>19614162
Are you whorephobic? Dont you support sex workers?

>>19614216
To give a serious answer: no - I think it's fundamentally degrading for both parties, no matter how you choose to rationalize the asymmetry.

>>19614162
Why should we side with prole good for nothings instead of badass people like tech CEOs and paramilitary death squads?

>>19614257
Its only the stigma that makes it denigrating. Imo traditional heterosexual relationships are more denigrating than sex work

>>19614131
Unfathomably based.
I support anticommunist causes solely to torment proles, they disgust me.

>>19614275
You are repulsive filth.

>>19614280
As progressives we believe that inside every working class man woman and child there is a fierce fetanyl affirming sex worker crying out to break free.

>>19614275
Perhaps, but let's look to the real world for a moment. I actually know prostitutes, girls that hook and plan to keep hooking.
>borderline personality
>runaway
>self-mutilators
>hard drug-habits
This isn't some random bullshit, this is what I've observed personally and what I see clinically. You also see this in the porn industry (per the available literature), but I know far fewer porno people than prostitutes. The stigma is less a function of nonconformity than it is a feature of instability. I'm not talking cam-whores or e-thots (hyperprivileged), but real people slinging cooch and bumping uglies.

Bump

>>19614162
>Shitty Sakaist bait.
Sakai is awesome. Nothing pisses commies off like bringing up his talking points does.

>>19612116
>First off, if that's the case, why did Marx discovering the dialectical method from Hegel's lapse into bourgeois mythology not cause the method to be passed on? Why did the era of revisionism and Machism happen at all?

Marx was bourgeois. Ideology is bourgeois. [Individuals are a bourgeois construct.] Individuals conducting ideological work are only capable of bourgeois output, thus bourgeois Marxism's back sliding.

Praxis work by working class collectives trying to reproduce themselves as part of the proletariat is the method passing itself onwards.

>Second, isn't the intensifying opposition between the actual reality of the proletariat (alienation and wage-slavery) and its ideal reality (bourgeois freedom) supposed to function with some degree of mechanical inevitability if it's the real process underlying history and discovered by dialectics? Why didn't it happen then?

Because collectives of human beings are involved. You can't just give workers a little red book and order them to be proletarian now. Workers themselves are engaged in the negation of their negative position which produces a proletarian collectivity. This revolution is still happening.

>Third, if the answer to question two is that we need a vanguard to spark the revolution and be its "sublime" leader of proletarian consciousness, even in predominantly agrarian, "feudal" areas with only a makeshift proletariat at best, how is this not a betrayal of the idea that the proletariat will develop its own consciousness, and how is this not blanquist vanguardism?

Leninism is blanquist vanguardism. Well spotted.

Sounds like you're ready to read KAPD and Operaismo now.

>>19614131
Based and Nietzsche/Stirner pilled

>>19612116
>Second, isn't the intensifying opposition between the actual reality of the proletariat (alienation and wage-slavery) and its ideal reality (bourgeois freedom) supposed to function with some degree of mechanical inevitability if it's the real process underlying history and discovered by dialectics? Why didn't it happen then?
The Great Depression was solved by the massive devaluation of capital in WWII, the increased efficiency of fixed capital for wartime production, and the massive appropriation of wealth from Europe and the third world by the United States. The crisis of capitalism in the 70s was solved by creating the world market and financializing the first world economies as parasites and labor aristocrats. Neither of these solutions actually solved the problem, but simply expanded the geographic area of capitalism and increased the power of crisis. If it took the most deadly war in history to solve the Great Depression, how can we possibly solve today's crisis which touches the entire globe and cannot devalue itself in the age of nuclear weapons? Even the most severe Keysnianism cannot touch today's crisis, the massive amount of surplus value that would be required to bring exchange value back into balance with value most likely doesn't even exist on the earth anymore.

Basically, after all the class struggles since Marx was born and even before then, which have gone back and forth and seemed to be in a down period until a few years ago, it's tough to stick to the fundamental contradictions of capitalism as the determinant force in history, but it is also necessary. As for the concept of democracy, it's a mostly nonsensical concept, and the western definition which you are using is complete nonsense. American elections and European elections represent the people about as much as Saddam Hussein getting 99% of the vote every election.

It's very hard to remove oneself from history and look objectively at the world. But it's clear that the contradictions of capitalism, which can never resolve themselves and can only be displaced over an even larger field, never went anywhere. The proletariat is larger than ever, the exploitation of humanity is increasing at a more rapid rate than ever in both the third world and in the first, and the earth is running out of places for the primitive accumulation of capital and the localization of crisis. In fact, the earth is simply running out of resources, and capitalism will be dead within the next 100 years whether it takes along most human life or not.

I’d believe in direct democracy but then I’d have to listen to literal fascists and faggots. Neither of which I very much like.

>>19614120
Why do I agree with most of this post’s content yet it makes me angry and upset beyond belief. Is it the snarky attitude? Is it the fact I’ll never touch a woman again in my life unless I pay for it? Is it because faggots and queer trans ‘folk’ are weaklings and any time they play tanky and try to act as if they would manage the monopoly of violence it feels like a total farce? Like a yapping Chihuahua? Is it because Takies don’t actually believe in democracy? I can’t quite place it. What is it about feminist theory that makes me rage so hard and make terrible posts like >>19616923 i would love to know and I bet there’s some bullshit feminism answer too.


Butterfly please help. Why am I so mad even though leftist?

>>19612116
>Why did the era of revisionism and Machism happen at all?

Idk about Machism but if you're asking about revisionists like Bernstein (and Kautsky), I would argue it emerged precisely because the material standards of the proletariat in Germany improved substantially in the late 19th century (partly due to the growing numbers and power of the SPD). Even Engels was guilty of this sentiment (i.e. 'The Tactics of Social Democracy')

>Second, isn't the intensifying opposition between the actual reality of the proletariat (alienation and wage-slavery) and its ideal reality (bourgeois freedom) supposed to function with some degree of mechanical inevitability if it's the real process underlying history and discovered by dialectics?

I don't think this is something Marxists will agree on. In my opinion it is a bit less restricting to think about the dialectical evolution of history not as a series of inevitable transformations but as a series of irreversible ones generated by the evolution of underlying material conditions. It is not 'inevitable' that we will advance to a state of post-capitalist existence (bad equillibria can persist indefinitely, as any economist will tell you) but it is inevitable that we will never return to feudalism, for instance. And to continue the metaphor of economic equillibria, it would take a 'shock' (read: vanguard) to the current state of affairs to induce chaos and allow for settlement at a new, higher equillibrium

>how is this not blanquist vanguardism?

Meh, it probably isn't - but I personally find Lenin's argument sufficiently compelling

>>19614120
That's cool but we're still gonna kill you when we can

>>19616946
>but it is inevitable that we will never return to feudalism, for instance
In the age of financialized capitalism, are we not reverting to a form of techno feudalism? It seems like everyone is just paying rents and debts to sustain themselves. I cannot recall the last person I met who actually makes something and doesn’t just provide a service. Kjmhn

>>19616961
>are we not reverting to a form of techno feudalism
No.

>>19614120
I kek'd

>>19616961
In Marxist theory all kind of oddities can exist side by side
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_Dobrogeanu-Gherea#Sociology

>In 1915, Leon Trotsky, citing Dobrogeanu-Gherea alongside Christian Rakovsky as a major figure of socialism in Romania, commented on Neo-Serfdom's conclusions:

>"All the contradictions of the social and political life of Rumania [sic]: the bondage of the peasants, judicially repealed but resurrected by the logic of economic relations; the parliamentary regime set up on the basis of Asiatic agrarianism; "British" freedoms in the cities, the old style Turkish despotism in the countryside -all these phenomena are subjected in Gherea’s great book to a truly masterly analysis where clarity and simplicity go hand in hand with a genuine Marxist profundity."

>>19616968
Private sector holding debt on mortgages, transportation, student loans, small business loans, property sales, predatory cash advance loans for wages all the while our daily activities become services themselves instead of goods (leasing hardware and furniture, monthly subscriptions of software and entertainment). It seems as if every facet of the modern human condition is a debt or a futures gamble. That sounds like a bunch of modern fealty to corporate overlords to me.

>>19616984
you're on the right track
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

>>19616987
Oops lads I accidentally became a nazbol

>>19616885
It's true what comrade Stalin said, class warfare intensifies the closer you get to achieving communism.

>>19616984
>dude student loans i owe for my degree in basket weaving are totally serfdom

>>19617020
>dude my greentext of a boomer Facebook meme will surely make his entire post invalid

>>19617020
>entire society goes from the norm and ideal being small independent families with own property to the norm and ideal being that you rent everything, own nothing, and have to pay credit on credit to get credit to get an education to get more credit to buy a house on credit and pay debt until you're dead (and then some)
>giant jew machine filtering money from actual producers to useless rent-seeking usurer class
>"Bro just pay your debts, debts are normal"

>>19617027
Jubilee when?

>>19617031
Manchin would vote no. We have to take it

>>19617045
Butterfly answer my question to you earlier in the thread. Why am I such a misogynistic class reductionist?

>>19616968
>Dialectics bro, we are gonna move to the socialist stage of development :)
You guys are so dumb it hurts. Marx didn’t know about global warming. You’re right, we aren’t going to techno-feudalism, we’re headed for old fashioned feudalism.

>>19617031
Soon isn't soon enough

>>19614120
Progressives are liars or fools (I was a fool). Marginalized folks have nothing to gain following their lies. The Roosevelt administration is long gone. The DNC are rolling out a blue fascism, but are on schedule to hand power of the Congress back to the other rightwingers of the GOP.

Marginalized folks do not want family abolition or pedophile acceptance. Only a small subsection of perverts wants that.
Meh. Troll post.

>>19616935
Get your head straight and ignore the weird tankie college boys. Get involved with real people and meet some nice girls.

>>19616935
Probably because you don’t work nor organise and it’s just a LARP to you.

>>19617056
>Marx didn’t know about global warming

Peak lib response

>>19616984
Go read Duby's Feudalism before you talk more shit. Then read the Annales critique of Duby. Then read non-Annales critiques of Duby.

Actually JUST FUCKING READ.

>>19617056
>we’re headed for old fashioned feudalism.
Stop living with your parents.
>>19617124
Stop living with your parents.
>>19617083
Go back to twitter.

>>19617151
>advertising

>>19617167
I find it bizarre that US tankies are LARPers. Here the Tankies rival only the libcoms for seriousness.

Here its the Trots and Deep Ecology kiddies who are LARPers.

>>19617145
What is Duby's perspective on feudalism? Doesn't he defend a coherent concept or epoch of feudalism against the Brown/Reynolds types? How does his view relate to Bloch?

>>19617171
Where’s your ‘here’, if I may ask?

>>19614131
Holy based

>>19617176
Regional micro-history illustrating the socio-economic systems of binding and going into the distinct forms of binding. Later: mentalites shite.

Basically the French are fundamentally using Marx's broad category as an indicative and then doing the drill down on the actual relations of Kings Court versus Local Violence.

>>19617179
NSW. Our tankies literally split from the mainline Communist Party in order to support the Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia, and then survived the 1980s unlike the CPA. All of them work as a matter of principle, almost all of them blue collar.

>>19612116
>First off, if that's the case, why did Marx discovering the dialectical method from Hegel's lapse into bourgeois mythology not cause the method to be passed on? Why did the era of revisionism and Machism happen at all?
because the proletariat is opposed by the conservative classes and their struggle isn't linear.
you should stop thinking about this like a pb academic, in terms of a battle of ideas, and start considering the class conflict.
the most powerful weapon of the bourgeoisie is eliminating independent proletarian class organizations and replacing them with bourgeois-left organizations that purport to be socialist, to represent the working class and often even talk in Marxist lingo, but in reality represent nothing but bourgeois and petty-bourgeois interests and political program.
>Second, isn't the intensifying opposition between the actual reality of the proletariat (alienation and wage-slavery) and its ideal reality (bourgeois freedom) supposed to function with some degree of mechanical inevitability if it's the real process underlying history and discovered by dialectics? Why didn't it happen then?
the degree of inevitability is that capitalism can't stop reproducing the proletariat that's being pushed to undermine it, that it can't save itself from cyclical crises, from constant imperialist conflict, and so on. and this has been happening all the time.
and bourgeois freedom is the actual reality of the proletariat. bourgeois freedom is alienation and wage labour.
>Third, if the answer to question two is that we need a vanguard to spark the revolution and be its "sublime" leader of proletarian consciousness, even in predominantly agrarian, "feudal" areas with only a makeshift proletariat at best, how is this not a betrayal of the idea that the proletariat will develop its own consciousness, and how is this not blanquist vanguardism?
this way of speaking about the party completely misses the point. the proletarian party is an emanation of the class. the development of the party IS the proletariat developing its own consciousness.
and the party can't create historical situations out of nothing. if it can genuinely "spark" a revolution, then this means that it already has revolutionary masses behind it, so labeling that as if it were an act of a small number of party members rather than a class act is a complete misnomer.

>>19613761
this

>>19613784
get a job

>>19613761
>gobbledygook
opinion discarded. only boomers use this word

>>19617569
filtered

>>19614120
commodifying things has nothing to do with marxism

>>19617470
capitalism has never contradicted itself. You need to read actual books see >>19613761

>>19617470
>like a pb academic
oh it's you. the guy in every marxism thread who calls everyone pb and talks in all lowercase
btw academics aren't really pb, they are proletarians under traditional marxist class demarcations. even marx refers to them as the "literary proletariat" somewhere iirc

>>19612116
Kautusky made similar counter-arguments, see his critiques of Lenin and Bolshevism.

>>19617603
https://archive.org/details/terrorismcommuni00kautuoft

>>19617601
isn't pb a meaningless distinction by Marxists meant to silence critique? They get so caught up in theory (without any scientific rigor) and propose ideas that are basically fan fiction. This is probably why their is so much in fighting among them. They are not grounded in reality so there is no clear distinction on how to go about filtering.

>>19617611
>isn't pb a meaningless distinction by Marxists meant to silence critique?
no, it's a pretty worthwhile distinction if you use it properly instead of rabidly throwing it around as a slur for everyone you don't like, the latter of which >>19617470 does as do many other internet marxists. pb just refers to those who perform wage labor but also privately own means of production

>>19617642
So like the almighty farmer?

>>19617659
yes which is why communism causes famines, (besides being a woefully incompetent system) because they seem to think anybody being productive on their own are counter-revolutionaries.

>>19617601
>the guy in every marxism thread who calls everyone pb
I call pb things pb, for example abstract talk about ideas without any reference to the real moments in class struggle that those ideas reflect.
>btw academics aren't really pb, they are proletarians under traditional marxist class demarcations
Engels:
>[B]ourgeois and petty-bourgeois socialism is strongly represented in Germany down to this very hour; on the one hand by PROFESSORIAL SOCIALISTS and philanthropists of all sorts with whom the wish to turn the workers into owners of their dwellings still plays a great role and against whom, therefore, my work is still appropriate; and on the other hand, in the Social-Democratic Party itself, and even in the ranks of the Reichstag fraction, a certain petty-bourgeois socialism finds a voice.
Marx & Engels:
>Neither the Zukunft nor the Neue Gesellschaft has contributed anything that might have advanced the movement by a single step. Here we find a complete lack of genuinely educative matter, either factual or theoretical. In place of it, attempts to reconcile superficially assimilated socialist ideas with the most diverse theoretical viewpoints which these gentlemen have introduced FROM THE UNIVERSITY or elsewhere, and of which each is more muddled than the last thanks to the process of decay taking place in what remains of German philosophy today.... [W]hen people of this kind, from different classes, join the proletarian movement, the first requirement is that they should not bring with them the least remnant of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but should unreservedly adopt the proletarian outlook. These gentlemen, however, as already shown, ARE CHOCK-FULL OF BOURGEOIS AND PETTY-BOURGEOIS IDEAS. In a country as petty-bourgeois as Germany, there is certainly some justification for such ideas. But only outside the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party.
>>19617611
>isn't pb a meaningless distinction by Marxists meant to silence critique? They get so caught up in theory (without any scientific rigor) and propose ideas that are basically fan fiction. This is probably why their is so much in fighting among them. They are not grounded in reality...
lmao, you immediately answered your own question. you literally described pb socialism just after having posed the question whether that's a meaningful category.
and that was exactly the point of my initial remark: pb "socialists" talk about ideal reflections of real class struggle as if it were an abstract struggle of ideas.
>rabidly throwing it around as a slur for everyone you don't like
lol I don't like Amazon but I never called them pb. who have I called pb that isn't pb?
>pb just refers to those who perform wage labor but also privately own means of production
that's just wrong. you don't even have a basic understanding of this. what the fuck are you doing talking about it?
>>19617664
petty-bourgeois agriculture is less productive than capitalist agriculture employing wage labourers.

>>19617664
>>19617706
and still regarding pb agriculture (I ran out of space): the USSR had problems with agricultural productivity not because they've removed petty-bourgeois agriculture but because they've RETAINED it. they weren't able to quickly create a productive large-scale capitalist agriculture because they lacked the capital and because the peasantry had an overwhelming social weight, basically dictating the state's policy. properly expropriating it was therefore out of the question and instead they were guaranteed small plots of land in perpetuity.

>>19617706
>petty-bourgeois agriculture is less productive
america farmers seem to be doing fine desu, though there are a lot of the latter here for some produce

>>19617719
This us just historical revisionism

>>19617721
first, even the smallest american farmers are heavily dependent on finance capital and state subsidies.
second, 1/3 of US farm workers are wage labourers, which means there's plenty of capitalism in US agriculture. and the more capitalist farms based on wage-labour also have a much higher productivity than the farms closest to pure pb farms, i.e those based mostly on the proprietor family "being productive on its own" -- see pic rel.

>>19617568
*was at work when this post was made*

>>19617601
Scholars being workers doesn’t make their commodity produced proletarian. I make parcels delivered. I don’t make that commodity be proletarian.

Working class scholars just get a wage to make bourgeois ideology.

>>19618231
tripfagging is not a job

>>19617818
How are you supposed to lecuture to anyone when you don't understand the over representation of the corn. Can you not into statistics?

>>19618503
>lecture
This isn’t a lecture. This is a symposium. Drunken banter with prostitutes.

>>19617706
>petty-bourgeois agriculture is less productive than capitalist agriculture employing wage labourers.
define "productive". Corn subsidies seem to delude your understanding.

>>19618509
speak for yourself

>>19618510
the ratio of the value of the output and the spent labour. what I'm saying boils down to the fact that concentrated enterprises are on average more productive than small fragmented enterprises, because concentration enables better application of machinery, economy in using the means of production, economy in using labour, boost to productivity from co-operation, and so on.

>>19618512
I am, whore. Also some cunt who doesn’t even know that the petitsbourgeois do not engage in wage labour ffs. Stalin was a better Marxist than that.

>>19618565
Up to over saturation, rate of profit my man. Volume 1.

>>19616961
Feudalism is not centered around paying rents. It is more defined by the lord/vassal relationship. What is exchanged/paid/transacted between the two is secondary. Furthermore, i dont recall the "technocrats" of our day demanding a mustering of armed forces against their competitors in the market. Feudalism is just not the right word.

Techno-serfdom on the other hand....

>>19618613
>Feudalism is not centered around paying rents.
>d/paid/t
But involves paying rent, but also soldier slaves and sovereign worship.
Technocrats pay and/or propagandize for soldiers

>>19618613
>Furthermore, i dont recall the "technocrats" of our day demanding a mustering of armed forces against their competitors in the market.
Read more about pharmaceuticals, recreational, as a market

>>19618661
His point is that it's a needless broadening and misuse of the term feudalism to use it willy nilly to apply to any class in which landlords rule over tenants. That would better be called serfdom. Feudalism specifically refers to something else, the lord/vassal relationship, and has more to do with political than social structure.

Marx's use of feudalism is a colloquialism. He was referring to the ancien regime in general, the pre-bourgeois, pre-revolutionary epoch. It wasn't meant to be an ultra-precise term acceptable to medievalists.

>>19618706
He’s trying to get at the core relationship or governments reciprocity at a low level as determinate in the relation of production. Give the cunt a break. He helped Engels revolutionise social science b

>>19618706
Oh okay. Thought I was probably missing something after sending that.
Erase erase.

>>19618690
Got any recs?

>>19618661
Examples? I don't think i understand.

>>19618706
Yes, this is what i meant. Serfdom implies lack of movement aka "freedom." In essence, you are tied to the land and cannot leave as per being a "serf." I suppose you could say serfs are a component of the land, or "property." I think technoserfdom is more appropriate because many proletariats refuse to go back to an office for work, and prefer to have nearly every consumable product delivered to them, and have their labor and leisure revolve around a computer or electronic device. All of these reduce free movement of proletariats, at least to a degree. It is still very possible to break away which was not the case in medieval serfdom. But i dont whole heartedly agree that this term is impending. Serfdom was imposed by coercion from above; this kind of serfdom seems to be self-imposed.

>>19618775
> https://www.google.com/search?q=economics+of+drug+dealing

The one about why drug dealers live with their mum is okay. But popular.

>>19618610
no, they're always more productive because the less productive small enterprises have to sell for the same prices
>>19618706
the term is very precise. it designates a non-communal form of production based on personal dependence rather than on straight up ownership (slavery) or on an impersonal relation between commodity seller and buyer (wage labour). it's true that nobody should care about medievalists though.

>>19617568
this thread about books for people with a job

—Engels

>>19613761
This

>>19618896
>no, they're always more productive because the less productive small enterprises have to sell for the same prices
Market saturation. If machines are sold in 5000 use value producing sets, and the market has an unmet demand of 250, and five speculative firms buy machines you get an over productivity of 24750 units. This is *habitual*

>>19618932
Sick burn.

>>19612116
I’m not gonna lie OP, I don’t understand the majority of this jargon you’re spewing, but it does emphasize the reason why Marxism died out so quickly. How can you read this this absolute nonsense about materialist dialectics, proletariat as a universal class, blanquist vanguardism, etc, and think the average person would care about it? They just want to feed their families and live comfy lives. Not define themselves by this fucking jargon that no one understands.

>>19613784
you contribute nothing to this world

>>19614120
Actually a good breakdown of how the average leftist thinks today

>>19619200
this issue was recognized very early on in the communist experience and is actually why orthodox marxism was invented. Orthodox marxism didn’t just mean “orthodox” in the sense of fidelity but also simplifying it and boiling it down to the essentials. This is what kautsky did well and why engels published Q&As and stuff. Lenin takes this further with the vanguard and the “most advanced section” of the working class. No one ever expected the average person to know the highest levels of theory. For instance you cant even understand fully the scope of marx without hegel. 99% of marxists theorists dont even know hegel how the hell could the workers?

>>19619245
you can read through hegel in under a few weeks, PoS cover to cover should take 1 or 2. not that hard

>>19619200
Mate, I’m delivering your Christmas mail today cunt. The fact that you’re a dumb cunt and can’t handle the bantz doesn’t mean my coworkers are.

>>19613842

Based Don Hughes poster

>>19619200
Marx was the only one worth reading. The problem with Marxism/communism literature past him, is that it runs out of substance fast for followers would want to somehow based their whole life around it. Since the marx model is partially no longer viable (I mean it's to be expected, he thought ancient Rome wasn't examples of Earths first capitalist economies). Because of the breakdown of this supposedly overcompensating theory, you get fluff theory, basically a myriad of frameworks and semantics made to construe observations, common sense, and facts to agree with their ideology. It really is a cult, for it purports to be a science, yet never provides any true rigor or replication of one or actually tries to apply itself to the modern world.

This is where you get things like Queer marxism, late stage capitalism, and CRT. A complex web of semantics and framworks to carefully craft subjective believes as a form of science or provable theory.

But that is really the legacy of marxist/communism. And it was soon being abandon as early as the 70's in the soviet union, tales of hardliners refusing to budge because it was "science". Even Lenin had to bring back forms of capitalism in the form of NEP, to keep the soviet union from collapsing, China, abandoning 5 year plans for guidelines and introducing socialist market economy. The literature today, only serves to be a right of passage to be initiated into the Chinese "communist" party.

Now it's seems to serve as a religion or purpose for weaker minded individuals who in the absence of religion need an underling framework based in "reality" to guide their thoughts.

>>19616935
>Why am I so mad even though leftist?
if you actually subscribe to that post's content then you're just a radlib, rightfully confused.

>>19619470
>radlib
that is just a neo-marxist or leftist

>>19617083
>The DNC are rolling out a blue fascism
I don't think the word "fascism" has any meaning any more. The post you are replying to is the evolution and legacy of Marxism.

>>19619472
It don’t mean a thing if alienated wage labour ain’t your thing. “The individual” is liberalism. Rights are liberalism.

Collective fucking power cunt.

>>19619513
radlibs are collective, they believe in collectivism through intersectionality. Alot of internet marxist have a hard time grasping this, especially since this form of collectivism and marxism is degrees more relevant today than the 20th century one which many internet commie hold onto. Internet marxist probably adopted the term radlib after the insurgence of this new "marxism" in order to still seem like they were part of the "cool guys" and imageboard culture.

>>19619172
I'm done trying to guess what your point is. you're free to state it in plain English if you want (I'll accept a few other languages too)

>>19619245
>this issue was recognized very early on in the communist experience and is actually why orthodox marxism was invented.
what issue? that some pb academic tards detached from any class movement circlejerk about abstracted abstraction of abstractions amongst each other? this has shit to do with communism in the first place. this is an issue of philosophy and of bourgeois social "science" which will be solved through proletarian revolution involving the sublation of the former and the abolition of the latter.

>Lenin takes this further with the vanguard and the “most advanced section” of the working class.

>The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
-- V. I. Lenin, The Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848

>>19619468
>Since the marx model is partially no longer viable
Marx has no models
>he thought ancient Rome wasn't examples of Earths first capitalist economies
because it wasn't. there was some capitalist production there, but the fundamental and dominating form of production was based on slavery, not on free wage labour.
the rest of your post talks about everything but Marxism

>>19619532
>but the fundamental and dominating form of production was based on slavery, not on free wage labour.
>free wage labour
that is an oxymoron, also what does it matter whether it's slaver or wage workers? Capitalism has no problem with employing both: they had wageis in Ancient Rome.

>>19619532
I thought capitalism was exploitation? Wouldn't the end result of capitalism be a slave based economy from the perspective of marxism

>>19619513
>alienated wage labour
Robots will soon alleviate this.

>>19619532
carthage was the first capitalist economy

Did someone here something?

>>19619529
No they don’t. Intersectionality is used by rad libs to describe fractured individuals not collective frames. Black people are an agglomeration of micro hostilities leveled at Bob and Susie. It isn’t a labour utilisation strategy. That’s your fucking rad lib. That’s what makes them a rad lib: taking the rights individual and state violence to ensure the rights to their limit, stirner.

>>19619552
Labour is only exploitative under conditions exclusive to the Bourgeois capitalists - material written by Michels (Political Parties, 1911) and Đilas (The New Class, 1957) are relevant (or would be, if the average Marxist could be bothered to read them).

>>19619592
>Intersectionality is used by rad libs to describe fractured individuals not collective frames
Individuals make up collectives

>gglomeration of micro hostilities leveled at Bob and Susie.
Black people are a race of humans

>taking the rights individual and state violence to ensure the rights to their limit
did you have a stroke?

Radlib is a direct descendant of Marxism. Instead of destroying and replacing cultures like Communism did, neo-marxism mixes or intwines cultures. In recognizes the different cultural need of each group (read about conflict theory) in order to form a single collective.

>>19619532
Stop pretending to have read volume 1

>>19619616
>Individuals make up collectives
Wow mate. Just wow. Get a fucking job and conduct an ontology of your workplace.

>>19619609
>Labour is only exploitative under conditions exclusive to the Bourgeois capitalists

Slavery is Labour. Labour is Exploitative.

These words are already defined, I have no clue why you are redefining them

>material written by Michels (Political Parties, 1911) and Đilas (The New Class, 1957) are relevant (or would be, if the average Marxist could be bothered to read them).
maybe they don't read them because they are not necessary. If the redefinition above are indicative of later Marxism, I can see why al ot of Marxist don't bother reading something that does nothing but to redefine.

>>19619627
>Wow mate. Just wow. Get a fucking job and conduct an ontology of your workplace.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how a simple factual statement
>Individuals make up collectives
caused you to get so emotional. Care to explain? /lit/ is always here to listen.

>>19619609
Special pleading

>>19619609
How is slavery not exploitative?

>>19619631
>>19619644
>>19619648
I was agreeing. Should have made that clearer.

>>19612116
Secularized talmudism

>>19619529
>>19619592
Radlibs are liberal because they fundamentally believe society is composed of aggregates of individuals. They may organize around LGBT and race but they ultimately define these groups as individuals reclaiming their natural human rights to freedom, equality and expression. That’s a liberal ontology. Why do you think most of the world still rejects LGBT for example? It’s incomprehensible without liberalism.

>>19619548
>that is an oxymoron
no, it's a pleonasm if anything
>also what does it matter whether it's slaver or wage workers?
because capital is money exchanged for wage labour. in a society based on slave labour the conditions necessary for the economy to be driven by owners of monetary wealth striving to make more money out of their money are non-existent.
>Capitalism has no problem with employing both
it can use both, but for capitalism to develop it needs a lot of wage labourers, it needs an internal market and people who will do work that's more sophisticated that what a slave can do.
and it also does have a problem with slaves: it quickly hits a wall where it becomes apparent that turning the remaining slaves into wage labourers will accelerate accumulation, and slavery is abolished.
>>19619552
>I thought capitalism was exploitation?
capitalism is a mode production.
>Wouldn't the end result of capitalism be a slave based economy from the perspective of marxism
no, the end result of capitalism will be a communist society. whereas slave-based economy corresponds to such level of development of means of production that most labour is used for agricultural grunt work. which is below the level necessary for capitalism.
>>19619622
I've read all 4 volumes. either state your point openly or shut the fuck up

>>19619640
“The individual” is an ideological concept. Foucault, Buddhism or Heidegger should help you. Actually manning a picket line would too.

>>19619716
Whereas hot man man action is traditional. M2M F2F C2C WITH FULL FIDELITY.

>>19619740
You don’t know what an overproduction crisis is or the tendency for capitalists to flood a market through excess mechanisation. Looking at the page isn’t reading.

>>19617470
>>19617706
based marx understander

>>19619716
Its embarrassing you are unironically a Marxist after the disasters it created in the 20th century. Do you have no shame?

>>19619740
>capitalism is a mode production.
Capitalism is an ontological that can mean anything. Definitions are merely sophistic abstractions meant to persuade people. They are not definitive value of truth.

>>19619768
I know what these are. what I don't know is what the relation of those is supposed to be to the relative productivity of concentrated production vs dissipated production, because you haven't said anything about this.
your favourite book, for one, has a single long sentence listing all the reasons why concentrated production has higher productivity:
>We showed in Part IV how the development of the social productivity of labour presupposes co-operation on a large scale; how the division and combination of labour can only be organized on that basis, and the means of production economized by concentration on a vast scale; how instruments of labour which, by their very nature, can only be used in common, such as systems of machinery, can be called into existence; how gigantic natural forces can be pressed into the service of production; and how the production process can be transformed into a process of the technological application of scientific knowledge.
>>19619854
lol you're so smart. too bad I'm not

>>19619716
>Radlibs are liberal because they fundamentally believe society is composed of aggregates of individuals.
Yes, radlibs see this and want to aggregate these individuals into a collective via intersctionality. Unlike Marx who only used conflict theory to describe the capitalist and working class. Rad libs recognize that society is more nuanced that their are multiple different cultures, religions, and races that are conflicting not just the two classes. Thus this aggregate individualism is a categorization of a problem to them not the end result. Each racial policy and affirmative action is meant to unify the working class against their exploiters (intersectionality). Unlike Marx, who thought a violent revolution was necessary for a classless society, radials see this achievable through multiracial democracies.

>Why do you think most of the world still rejects LGBT for example?
a rad lib who say this to be class or a subclass of conflict between straights and gays.

>>19619740
>because capital is money exchanged for wage labour
money is just value, does it specifically have to be fiat? Slaves in a sense don't work for free, wether this payment is a break from the lib or a place to sleep, I don't see how it's different in dynamics as a wage slave.

>in a society based on slave labour the conditions necessary for the economy to be driven by owners of monetary wealth striving to make more money out of their money are non-existent.
Are you trying to say the accumulation of capital for financial means was nonexistent?
Why would you think this?

>people who will do work that's more sophisticated that what a slave can do.
what? What does havign to be a slave have to do with the level of sophistication of their work? Greeks/Romans employed slaves as teachers.

> it quickly hits a wall where it becomes apparent that turning the remaining slaves into wage laborers will accelerate accumulation, and slavery is abolished.
Slavery was abolitionist on moral grounds and also not being as useful as free wage labour.

>>19619740
> in a society based on slave labour the conditions necessary for the economy to be driven by owners of monetary wealth striving to make more money out of their money are non-existent.
Publicans, taverns, brothels existed? Wouldn't that count?

>>19619499
>The post you are replying to is the evolution and legacy of Marxism.
prove it

>>19620151
A fundamental feature of Marxism if conflict theory, mainly between the capitalist and the working class. Marx used this frame work to expose the exploitation of workers and how capitalism persist. Conflict theory has since been widened to included other classes and sub classes in CRT, sociology, and other radlib institutions with the means of identifying and reconciling capitalist exploitation b/w religions, ethnicity, races, and orientation. The goal is to fix these conflicts, and unify the classes through intersectionalism. They too want a classless society.

>>19620069
>money is just value, does it specifically have to be fiat?
no, it doesn't have to be fiat
>I don't see how it's different in dynamics as a wage slave.
a wage slave isn't owned. he exchanges a certain amount of labour power with a capitalist for money. beyond that he can do whatever he wants with his time, he can spend his money however he wants, but he also isn't guaranteed a place to live and food by anyone and has to care of that himself by going to the market. and so on. there are plenty of differences.
>Are you trying to say the accumulation of capital for financial means was nonexistent?
no, I'm saying that accumulation of capital was marginal and wasn't the driver of production. but it did exist. Marx talked about it:
>In ancient Rome, beginning with the last years of the Republic, when manufacturing stood far below its average level of development in the ancient world, merchant's capital, money-dealing capital, and usurer's capital developed to their highest point within the ancient form.

>What does havign to be a slave have to do with the level of sophistication of their work? Greeks/Romans employed slaves as teachers.
supervisors, not teachers. they mostly followed the child around and made sure it doesn't do stupid shit. slaves were always bred to do the lesser jobs, while the more sophisticated jobs were only entrusted to freemen. this kind of a division of labour was the basis of every slave society.
>Slavery was abolitionist on moral grounds
no, the fact that slavery was abolished at the moment it was abolished was determined by the productive forces outgrowing the slave form. this caused the interests of a decisive part of the bourgeoisie to be in the abolition of slavery, which in turn caused abolitionist morality to gain traction among them and in broad society. claiming morality as the ground completely inverts the real process.
>>19620114
no, compare their economic weight to all the farms. it was negligible

>>19620359
>a wage slave isn't owned. he exchanges a certain amount of labour power with a capitalist for money. beyond that he can do whatever he wants with his time, he can spend his money however he wants, but he also isn't guaranteed a place to live and food by anyone and has to care of that himself by going to the market. and so on. there are plenty of differences.
Why does it matter that the laborer is payed in fiat or give a place to stay? Or is clothed by himself or by others? Romans slaves could own money (at their masters discretion) and buy their freedom and their wasn't just one form of slave.

>no, I'm saying that accumulation of capital was marginal and wasn't the driver of production
So capitalism is defined when the driver of production, is some arbitrary percentage of wage labors? That is not a very reliable definition

>it was abolished was determined by the productive forces outgrowing the slave form. this caused the interests of a decisive part of the bourgeoisie to be in the abolition of slavery, which in turn caused abolitionist morality to gain traction among them and in broad society. claiming morality as the ground completely inverts the real process.
>his caused the interests of a decisive part of the bourgeoisie to be in the abolition of slavery
So slavery was abolished on moral grounds. If their were no moral grounds there would be no abolitionist, since it was still a valued commodity of the south.

>studies in marxist dialectics
imagine wasting your time reading this bullshit

>>19620359
>no, the fact that slavery was abolished at the moment it was abolished was determined by the productive forces outgrowing the slave form. this caused the interests of a decisive part of the bourgeoisie to be in the abolition of slavery, which in turn caused abolitionist morality to gain traction among them and in broad society. claiming morality as the ground completely inverts the real process.
>productive forces outgrowing the slave form

So you think the "productive forces outgrowing the slave form" had nothing to do with Morales? Could the productive forces not have been constrained by parts of societies unwillingness to see it go on, thus forcing the productive forces to adapt and outgrow the slave form in order to accommodate the moral taste of these parts?

>>19616935
I get this feeling while listening to Angie Speaks or Aimee Terese, I agree with a lot of what they say but they're fucking infuriating, that Richard Spencer tweet about Terese was largely right (it pains me more to agree with that fed than it does for you to read me doing so I assure you). Ultimately, none of that matters and it's all e-celeb nonsense.

>>19620359
>a wage slave isn't owned. he exchanges a certain amount of labour power with a capitalist for money. beyond that he can do whatever he wants with his time, he can spend his money however he wants, but he also isn't guaranteed a place to live and food by anyone and has to care of that himself by going to the market. and so on. there are plenty of differences.

Why can't the working class be owned? Where does the line between slavery and wage labor begin? How does this take into account the social aspects of conflict theory? Debt slavery?

Is it because the capitalist class has to somehow convince or entrance the working class to work for them? Is that the difference you are going for? Because one can make the argument that slaves are convinced to work due by the guarantee of no harm or a place to sleep? Slaves have the "freedom" to refuse or revolt. I can't help that one would have to dehumanize slaves at an anthropomorphic level to make this distinction between slavery and wage "slavery". Slaves can seize the means of production too.

>>19613761
I think Ellul and Durkheim are based, and that I generally enjoy reading critiques of social structures/how society affects individuals past "its the jews" or "its the capitalists". All the sociologists I've read and talked to very clearly don't believe their work is science in the same way that chemistry is, because that's retarded. Just wanted to say I also think that you're retarded and that I'm seething.

>>19620610
>I also think that you're retarded and that I'm seething.
Whose more retarded the retard, or the one who seethes at him?
Whose seething more, the seether or the seethee?
Is seethe the result of an unstoppable force meeting and immovable object?

>>19617124
Pray tell anon, how will this socialist stage he predicted emerge when the productive forces you guys are so fond of crumble away as the seas rise and the global extraction/transport of goods fades? Society will collapse before socialism is achieved. Marx was wrong.

>>19616885
>The proletariat is larger than ever, the exploitation of humanity is increasing at a more rapid rate than ever in both the third world and in the first
?
The bourgeoise is larger than ever before. The first world is automatically bourgeoise, so your claim there's a proleritarit there is laughable. As for the third world, the bourgeoise has gone greatly in India, in China, in Africa and elsewhere. The net number of proleritarit has shrunk greatly since 1970s.

>>19620519
>Why can't the working class be owned? Where does the line between slavery and wage labor begin?
Value form. Unpaid wage labour and unfree wage labour are common topics of research. Even in Auschwitz

>>19621062
>Value form. Unpaid wage labour and unfree wage labour are common topics of research.
Are you saying that whether roman was capitalist is still being "researched"

>>19621105
Ancient slavery differs from unwaged unfree workers in capitalism. The capitalist mode of production didn’t exist in Rome.

>The capitalist mode of production didn’t exist in Rome.
This is not true. There were people who owned the means of production, had surplus, and did it with waged labor. Does this go back to to your explanation, thought, that even though this is true (that the capitalist mode of production existed in Rome) it was negligible? The only problem with this answer is that I am asking you why can't Rome be described as capitalist when the slaves could be said to be the working class, and your answer was essentially "because that is not the definition of capitalism" since the definition of "capitalist mode of production" predisposes that it it wage labour and not slave labour. Circling back to my question why? Just cause? Is capitalism a definition that only works in the context of industrialization and that is why it can't be applied to ancient civilizations?

>>19621062
>Value form.
how do expect to be taken seriously on /lit/ by using terms like "value form" for your arguments.

>Value form.
>historical materialism
You're supposed to read Marx, not use it as an actual framework.

>>19621222
>food not commodity
>labour power not being reproduced
Nice1 punchy. Real fucking analytical. Also modes of production are totalising relations. People LARP at enslavement, it doesn’t make an ancient slave mode of production real when they pay for their buttplugs produced by alienated labour with alienated labour in a context of reproducing their labour power.

>>19621464
So...I take it you have nothing more to add to this conversation, due to the unreasonable level of seethe (towards what?) in your post. Also the entirety of your post is intelligible jargon. I was hoping for a nice conversation. All I did was stated that question that Rome is not considered capitalist by others since the definition of capitalism they are using is in the context of industrialization and cannot be applied to ancient civilizations.

>>19621291
>>19621325
If I wanted to experience ignorant adhominems I’d be on /v/. If you could argue against praxis you would be. So I accept your conceding your defeat.

>>19621491
>If I wanted to experience ignorant ad hominems
>So I accept your conceding your defeat.
This is why marxist/communist are not taken seriously on /lit/ and are routinely laughed out or ignored. Your not here to discuss literature you are here to affirm your outdated ideology. Do you know what an ad homienem is? Where did I attack your character? Are you using words you yourself do not understand

>If you could argue against praxis you would be. So I accept your conceding your defeat.
are you an ESL or Drunk?

Also you are replying to more than one anon. I'm >>19621325

You are not discussing literature, you are using pseudo-science to explain historical events. You are assuming the objectivity of a value of theory that has not been practical in economics for a long time.

>>19621534
Get back to me after you read EP Thomson on Time. The anarchists host it on libcom.

>>19621899
>Get back to me after you read EP Thomson on Time. The anarchists host it on libcom.
lit recommendations are not a substitution for discussion, either you know what you are talking about or you don't and you have proved the latter for yourself.

Forget about "History and class consciousness": Lukacs' grandest contribution is without doubt his "Destruction of reason", especially the chapter on Nietzsche-the-weakling-who-thinks-he's-big-and-strong. His book "Young Hegel" isn't half bad either, although the Stalinist lingo is laughable.

>>19621899
>namefag
>libcom
>EP Thomson

holy trinity of faggotry

>thinks mythology is some kinda rich people shit
Lol what a faggot

>>19621921
context?

>>19621911
Why would I read something by a literal who marxist?

Is this the designated marxist/commie safespace thread?

>imagine building a philosophy off of limited resources
What a fuckin cuck. Meanwhile alchemy chads are gonna turn dirt into diamonds

>>19621940
no one's stopping you from posting right wing socialism, we all hate immigration here friend

>>19621975
>Is this the designated marxist/commie safespace thread?
yep this is it

>>19621926
the OP

>>19622011
indeed, that was after he bent over and sucked globohomo cock (not that he was ever all that great). wasn't endorsing sanders, just pointing out that every non-retarded socialist should see immigration for the capitalist scam it is.

>>19619846
not real marxism

>>19621975
>>19622011
lol leftycuck btfo

>>19622025
>immigration for the capitalist scam it is.
Humans have been immigrating for thousands of years.

Do you even know what a capitalist is anymore? Capitalist for marxist are what jews are for /pol/acks.

>>19621975
Reagan is actually right here though - Sanders is wrong. Sanders never had good economic takes - he praised Cuba

>>19622036
>Capitalist for marxist are what jews are for /pol/acks
correct, and you're case in point

>>19622025
>>19622043

>>19622025
>immigration for the capitalist scam it is.
Not very internationalist of you desu. In fact your thoughts reek of revisionism

>>19612116
marxism is too hard

>>19620411
>Why does it matter that the laborer is payed in fiat or give a place to stay? Or is clothed by himself or by others?
are you asking me why differences between two things matter to distinguishing their concepts?
>Romans slaves could own money (at their masters discretion) and buy their freedom and their wasn't just one form of slave.
they could at their masters discretion, while wage worker has to, and he has no master. that's yet another difference. but I no longer know what you point is.
>So capitalism is defined when the driver of production, is some arbitrary percentage of wage labors? That is not a very reliable definition
the social form of production is determined by what kind of productive relation is socially dominant and is the main motor through which society reproduces itself. what else would it be determined by?
>So slavery was abolished on moral grounds.
no, it was abolished on economics grounds. and economic interests appear in their bearers as moral convictions
>since it was still a valued commodity of the south.
so what? interests of northern industrialists have prevailed because they represented the development of capitalism.
>>19620442
>So you think the "productive forces outgrowing the slave form" had nothing to do with Morales?
I think that when a society would collapse without an immense amount of slaves to sustain a relatively sophisticated society with simple technological means, then the moral belief that enslaving another person is wrong has zero chance of gaining any traction, but when a society has advanced productive forces and would benefit from abolition of slavery, then such moral belief is bound to gain broad traction sooner or later.
>Could the productive forces not have been constrained by parts of societies unwillingness to see it go on, thus forcing the productive forces to adapt and outgrow the slave form in order to accommodate the moral taste of these parts?
layers that stand in the way of productive development because their interests are tied to outdated forms of production (nobility, slave owners, etc.) are swept away by the revolutionary layers whose interests at the moment align with that development
>>19620519
>Why can't the working class be owned?
because working class means class of free wage labourers, and slavery is a different social relation from wage labour.
>Where does the line between slavery and wage labor begin?
with whether the worker itself is property or whether he's a free citizen with rights who sells his labour-power on the market
>How does this take into account the social aspects of conflict theory?
I don't speak academese
>Is that the difference you are going for?
I've already listed tons of differences
>Slaves can seize the means of production too.
ok
>>19620921
>The net number of proleritarit has shrunk greatly since 1970s
lmao that's just ridiculously wrong. I don't know how you can seriously believe this when it's since then that India and China have industrialized

>>19622886
>lmao that's just ridiculously wrong. I don't know how you can seriously believe this when it's since then that India and China have industrialized
>People becoming labor aristocrats means the proletariat has grown
Lmao retard

>>19619846
it's embarrassing that your understanding of marxism and the world at large are limited to MSM talking points

>>19622930
you have to go back

>>19622915
where the fuck would China and India even get the means to make the majority of a half a billion of workers into labour aristocracy

>>19622886
>I think that when a society would collapse without an immense amount of slaves to sustain a relatively sophisticated society with simple technological means, then the moral belief that enslaving another person is wrong has zero chance of gaining any traction, but when a society has advanced productive forces and would benefit from abolition of slavery, then such moral belief is bound to gain broad traction sooner or later.

Why are you assuming the advancement of these productive forces are not because of these moral beliefs? You are trying to make broad claims about history without providing the facts to sustain your point.

>layers that stand in the way of productive development because their interests are tied to outdated forms of production (nobility, slave owners, etc.) are swept away by the revolutionary layers whose interests at the moment align with that development

What makes you think these layers did not dismantle themselves, without a need for a "revolutionary layer".

>>19620187
>refers to dialectics as "conflict theory" and suggests that because marxism was vulgarised and contorted by liberals, this is the legacy of marxism
yeah bro I think you think you "get it" but you don't even know what "it" is

>>19622886
>How does this take into account the social aspects of conflict theory?
>I don't speak academese
How can you claim to understand Marxism, if you never heard of his most important theory? The social conflict theory is the fundamental foundation of Marxism that describes the class struggle and outlines the working and capitalist class.

Unironically READ MARX. Or just read in general. This is /lit/, do you think the people here haven't read the same material you purported to have read?

>>19621222
Real ML hours
>bro modes of production can totally exist side-by-side that's why socialism can have commodity production trust me

>>19619814
he doesn't know what he's talking about. his (engels lol) quotes don't even support what he's saying and, like i said, he calls everything he doesn't like pb which dilutes the term and betrays the asystemacity of his thinking. pb are those who own mop but also perform labor, nothing more. academics are not this, neither are neets

>>19623056
>yeah bro I think you think you "get it" but you don't even know what "it" is
>refers to dialectics as "conflict theory"
Is this your concession? Do you know what conflict theory is? How are these terms mutually exclusive?

>>19623061
>bro modes of production can totally exist side-by-side
correct
>that's why socialism can have commodity production
>Rome was socialist

>>19623076
>he calls everything he doesn't like pb which dilutes the term and betrays the asystemacity of his thinking
your entire argument is based on a strawman, he doesn't call people pb, unless they fit the defintion. If 99% of internet Marxist like you didn't act like this, then maybe you would be taken seriously on /lit/.

>>19619532
>sublation
nice plain english

>>19622085
kek, saved

>>19623092
he calls academics pb which they are not. academics don't own mop

>>19623086
>Rome was socialist
was not implying this

>>19623103
>he calls academics pb which they are not. academics don't own mop
They absolutely do, what do you think research is?

>>19623108
this was not true in the past, but it is becoming more true today. Academics are turning into the plant managers

>>19612116
This shit is even more retarded than occultism. At least the latter has some kind of aesthetic value

they fucked up. The reply notes are barely visible on blue boards

>>19621222
Slaves are not human, ergo Rome was socialist because the means of production were owned socially.

>>19623136
>t. /pol/

>>19623136
>the working class are not human, ergo America is socialist because the means of production are owned socially.

>>19623108
i mean i don't think the academics themselves doing the research own mop? they have to use classrooms to teach, and need access granted by their institution for research resources (in the humanities this is generally just journal articles or library loans, but it's significantly more for the sciences). they only get these things for a wage
you might have heard the term "professional-managerial class"; this is a new class demarcation that neomarxists came up with to describe (among others) academics because the old slotting of them into proletarians wasn't satisfying, since they seem to exhibit material interests (and corresponding ideology) that differs from the rest of the working class. but they are still not pb. in fact, in the paper where pmc originates from, the authors talk about how some 20th century marxist thinkers (knowingly diverging from traditional marxism) tried to argue academics are pb and they show how this isn't coherent

>>19623143
>>19623144
>no arguments
>slaves and aristocrats are all equally human... just because

>>19623163
this really just sounds like pb is not that useful of a term

>>19623168
>no arguments
What is there to argue, we are laughing at your retardation.

>>19623168
Marxist will always be the lolcows of /lit/<span class="fortune" style="color:#7fec11">

Your fortune: You're on the nice list![/spoiler]

>>19623187
OH SHIT! Let me try.

Uh...Marxism is...le based?<span class="fortune" style="color:#fc532d">

Your fortune: Merry Christmas![/spoiler]

>>19623177
>still no argument

>19623197
Dear Santa, what should the fortune for this retard be?<span class="fortune" style="color:#532dfc">

Your fortune: Blessed Yule![/spoiler]

>>19623163
>they only get these things for a wage
i misspoke, meant to say they only get this for performing wage labor
>>19623172
it's useful for other things. for example small "mom n pop" business owners, independent farmers, and self-employed artists are all pb. just not academics. you wouldn't know this from >>19617706 because he regularly misuses the term and, like i said, dilutes it

>>19623197
santa has spoken, for thinking that Rome was somehow socialist, you get a very blessed Yule!

>>19623042
>Why are you assuming the advancement of these productive forces are not because of these moral beliefs?
because those beliefs only gain traction when what they call for is in the interest of the class representing advance in production and when this class has the required social weight. and those are both conditioned by the development of productive forces: both the social weight of that class and the fact that at the given moment slavery is _the_ obstacle that stands immediately on the road to further development.
>What makes you think these layers did not dismantle themselves, without a need for a "revolutionary layer".
because I know history. classes don't voluntarily dismantle the order their privileges are based upon. they do everything they can to sustain it.
>>19623060
>How can you claim to understand Marxism, if you never heard of his most important theory?
that's not Marx's theory but an invention of bourgeois sociologists
>This is /lit/, do you think the people here haven't read the same material you purported to have read?
lmao, yes, actually it's very obvious that only a few percent at max of people that participate in these threads have read Marx. the rest are just morons who pretend to talk about Marx but instead just regurgitate garbage like leftard youtube videos or wikipedia pages (on sociology and such).
>>19623095
I meant plain as in "clearly or unequivocally". the point was that the guy was beating around the bush instead of stating what exactly he disagreed about and why
>>19623103
academics have a privileged social position with respect to the common worker that ensures them privileges from the ruling class and a share in surplus value for their service to that class, the owners of the means of production. their interest is in defending their position and serving the class that ensures it as their ideologists and priests. proletarians, on the other hand, "have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify" (Manifesto).

German Ideology:
>The division of labour, which we already saw above as one of the chief forces of history up till now, manifests itself also in the ruling class as the division of mental and material labour, so that inside this class one part appears as the thinkers of the class (its active, conceptive ideologists, who make the perfecting of the illusion of the class about itself their chief source of livelihood), while the others’ attitude to these ideas and illusions is more passive and receptive, because they are in reality the active members of this class and have less time to make up illusions and ideas about themselves.

>>19623205
Iupiter Optimus Maximus

>>19623208
>because those beliefs only gain traction
once again you are making generalization without anything to substantiate them

>slavery is _the_ obstacle that stands immediately on the road to further development.
says who

>>19623208
>that's not Marx's theory but an invention of bourgeois sociologists
Marx's theory IS a conflict theory (b/w two classes). This is fucking basic stuff.

>>19623208
You are getting shit on by the entire thread, this must be a terrible Christmas for you.<span class="fortune" style="color:#aad001">

Your fortune: You're on the naughty list![/spoiler]

>>19623232
>Your fortune: You're on the naughty list!
kek, It seems like making fun a guy getting shit on is naughty, where is your Christmas spirit Anon?

>>19623208
Merry Christmas bunkertranny, for today I let you pretend Academics are bp. It will be our little secret! ;^)

>>19623223
>once again you are making generalization without anything to substantiate them
it's substantiated by the entire history of humankind. moral beliefs reflect economic interests, whether species interests independent of the form of production (such as "indiscriminate murder is wrong") or specific class interests (such as "every person has a moral right to own property"). I can't give you a proper historical proof in a 4chan post, nor do I want to spend time on that.
>says who
says for example the second industrial revolution that the US have entered immediately after the abolition of slavery
>>19623228
no, "conflict theory" is an empty abstraction constructed by bourgeois ideologists
>>19623232
nice cope. I'm always the single Marxist in these threads surrounded by hordes of inane libtard and tradlarp children and I always come up on top.
>>19623242
leftypol is even worse than lit lol

>>19623272
>I can't give you a proper historical proof in a 4chan post, nor do I want to spend time on that.
ah so you don't have one

>>19623272
>says for example the second industrial revolution that the US have entered immediately after the abolition of slavery

Correlation is not causation

>>19612116
what is this sophistry

>>19623272
>it's substantiated by the entire history of humankind. moral beliefs reflect economic interests, whether species interests independent of the form of production (such as "indiscriminate murder is wrong") or specific class interests (such as "every person has a moral right to own property"). I can't give you a proper historical proof in a 4chan post, nor do I want to spend time on that.

>>it's substantiated by the entire history of humankind
>moral beliefs reflect economic interests

I understand taking a philosophical approach to history, but claiming that kind of analysis as fact or evidence is legit pseudo-science

>>19617569
It's a fanfaronade, Anon

>>19623208
>>19623272
>no, the fact that slavery was abolished at the moment it was abolished was determined by the productive forces outgrowing the slave form. this caused the interests of a decisive part of the bourgeoisie to be in the abolition of slavery, which in turn caused abolitionist morality to gain traction among them and in broad society. claiming morality as the ground completely inverts the real process.
>no, the fact that slavery was abolished at the moment it was abolished was determined by the productive forces outgrowing the slave form
This has no logical standing, "slavery was abolished at the moment it was abolished" was due to abolitionist movements (aka morals). Your erroneously trying to simplify the complex capital that is a human slave, to only be of use in the industries at the time it was deemed not as inefficient as free wage labor. If we take the productive forces for outgrowing labor and not morals, then you fail to explain why this form of capital didn't evolve to be used in other forms of industry? Horses, dogs, cats and other domestic animals were outgrown by the productive forces, yet the ownership of these animals is not prohibited, and have since then used by the productive forces. Do you not think the reason for this lack of adaptation into other industries was because it was barred from existing by values and morals of certain groups and peoples after it was deemed inefficient in it's current industry? How can the productive forces prevent slavery from being utilized and adapted for medical and scientific experimentation? Do you realize how advanced in the medical, physiological, and social sciences if we were to experiment on live humans without the hindrance of morals? There really is no telling what other industries slavery would have been used and adapted to, if not for abolitionist and public moral distaste.

>>19624129
Historical Materialism BTFO in one post, Bravo.