/lit/ - Literature

>>19777971
>reductionistic scenario to illustrate a basic point
brilliant way to start a marx thread, im sure this thread will be very insightful.

>>19777971
so why doesn't the worker sell the tshirts directly to the customer and cut out the middle man?

>>19778065
Because worker doesn’t have capital; money, means of production, and land. The worker only has his time and energy to produce commodity.

He doesn’t have ability to sell it directly to customer.

>>19778065
This already happens with produce, meat and milk when you buy local, and as it turns out you usually get lower prices and higher quality products

>>19778073
doesn't the capitalist deserve a compensation for risking his capital in an endeavor that might fail?

>>19778065

Because, in my experience, the middle man often owns the raw materials. If the worker sells the commodities to the customer directly, he would need to steal.

A solution for the worker is to work for others until he can afford his own raw materials, and work on those until he can sell them to the customer himself. This is called 'making it' in street terms. He has to be wary, however, that he does not have others work for him, or he will become a middleman himself.

At the end of the day: Work is work and it is better than watching TV all day. However it matters if you earn enough to save something from your own work for when there is no work. This is where working for middlemen often lacks, as they often don't pay enough for that.

A thing is that with both 'work for middlemen' and 'working for yourself' is that you are. always. dependant. on. others. When you say 'I'm working for myself so screw everyone', thát's when you lose. This is something that I am learning at the moment. When you make an appointment or take up an assignment, it is important that you stick to it until it's done, and communicate with the person assigning the work to you.

Also, this is not /biz/ and I openly doubt that OP has read Das Kapital in it's entirety.

>>19778115
>He has to be wary, however, that he does not have others work for him, or he will become a middleman himself.
If everybody works for himself, how are new workers supposed to 'make it'?

>>19778075
i can imagine it being true for rural areas. However, cities don't have enough local farms in close proximity to feed everybody.

>>19778115
>Work is work and it is better than watching TV all day.

>>19777971
The boss has to pay for the means of production, maintain the means of production, and hire workers. They also have to pay taxes. If their business fails; they own the debt. The worker does not have to pay for the means of production, maintain them or pay taxes for the business. Nor does the worker go into debt if the business fails. They always find another job. Its much more difficult to start a business again after failing.

>>19778065
OP didn't mention this in his post, but because the worker doesn't have access to the means of production: ie the machines allowing him to sew the t shirt at a high pace, give them their color, etc...

>>19778115
>Also, this is not /biz/ and I openly doubt that OP has read Das Kapital in it's entirety.
This is funny, because every time there is a thread about Marx on /biz, or even a thread which goes on talking about Marx, the thread is deleted.
/biz is so intolerant toward Marx and communism generally, that when you even suggest that Capitalism is bad, they tell you to leave.

>>19777971
>This t shirt has two values; use value and exchange value
He's already wrong here.

>>19778234
>The boss has to pay for the means of production, maintain the means of production, and hire workers.
He does all this with the surplus value, surplus labor, extracted from the workers. From what i know, the current rate of exploitation is 200%. That means if a worker is paid 100, he produce a value of 300 in total, and 200 in excess of his wage. It is from this 200 in excess that the "boss" pays for the means of production, maintain them, and hire new workers.
The only thing the Capitalist pay from his own pocket in Capitalism, is the initial investment. If after this initial investment, the company is profitable, all new value created, is created by the proletarians working in the factory.

>>19778234
OP neglected to mention he is basically only referring to high tier capitalists, ie bankers (who happen to be of the chosen race), whose capital consists solely of manipulation of money markets and interest rates, rather than ownership of actual physical capital or raw goods. Marxists are hundreds of years behind economic reality. Bill Still is the modern Marx.

>>19778236
then this equation cannot be true
$10 (raw materials) + $50 (labour time) = $60 (commodity)

since the access to means of production is a factor in the production, the equation should be:
$10 (raw materials) + x (labour time) + $50 - x (access to means of production) = $60 (commodity)

>>19778254
>He does all this with the surplus value, surplus labor, extracted from the workers
He does not because "surplus value, surplus labor" do not exist. Those are mere theoretical elaborations. You are paid according to what you contractually are obligated to work for. If you don't like - you can always find another job or become self employed.
>production, maintain them, and hire new workers.
The only thing the Capitalist pay from his own pocket in Capitalism, is the initial investment.
That's entirely false. The capitalist has to constantly pay operating costs such as buying new means of production, pay for raw materials, paying worker salaries, paying for taxes, and there are constant investment costs for keeping up with other competitors so that they do not fall behind and lose money. "Exploitation" is a silly word for Marxists. Exploitation is a fact of life; humans must exploit their environment because resources and time are scarce. Exploitation is a means of reducing costs and being efficient with time. The idea that exploitation has a negative connotation is just silly and naive. That's where the Marxist analysis fails to be objective, and reveals its inherent slave morality.

>>19778263
Marxists think economics starts and ends with Marx. Its not surprising they never go beyond him. Its a cult around two individuals who they believe are infallible, and everything to the contrary with bourgeois propaganda." It doesn't matter how many people are killed, how many centrally planned economies collapse - Marx is still considered without flaws.

>>19778263
I work in the financial industry and I believe that we provide a valuable service to society. Quiet frankly, I find it rather rude that you view us as parasites.

>>19778273
No OP's equation is not true.
The real equation, with the current surplus labor in the western economy, would be more like
$40 (raw materials)+$10(labor time)=$70(commodity)
30 have been created by the labor of the worker, when the worker is himself only being paid 10. The Capitalist takes 20 from the worker.
>>19778278
>He does not because "surplus value, surplus labor" do not exist. Those are mere theoretical elaborations.
Yes it does exist you Capital apologist. If surplus value didn't exist, where does value produced in a factory come from? Is the value created by the boss, sittting in his office, making phone calls, when his 2000 factory worker produce the product? Is the value produce by the market, when the product is sold?
No. Value is created by the factory worker, working in the factory, when he make the t-shirt with his hand.

>>19778330
Why does the worker give 20$ to capitalist when he doesn't need him to produce t-shirts?

>>19778278
>That's entirely false. The capitalist has to constantly pay operating costs such as buying new means of production, pay for raw materials, paying worker salaries, paying for taxes, and there are constant investment costs for keeping up with other competitors so that they do not fall behind and lose money.
And there again, the Capital apologist didn't understand. Those operating costs, such as "buying new means of production, pays for raw materials, paying worker salaries, paying for taxes, and constant investment costs" are paid with SURPLUS VALUE, created by the workers. Those costs are not paid with the personal saving from the Capitalist, or because this said Capitalist sold his house, or from his grandmas inheritance money. Those cost are paid by the profit the Capitalist made, which is, again SURPLUS VALUE, SURPLUS LABOR, EXPLOITATION, NON PAID LABOR, taken from the excess value created by the worker.
Here, in my pic related, the "operating costs", you mention are paid with the red in this pic related picture. No with value coming from the pocket, or the labor, of the owner of the means of production (Capitalist).
Although this graph is partially imprecise, since today, in the west, the average rate of profit is 200%. That means, there should be two times more red, than orange, in this graph.

>>19778346
He needs him to give him a wage, because he doesn't own the means of production to produce the t-shirts. The Capitalist is hoarding the means of production. Of use this as a lever in order to extract the labor of the workers. To pay the worker less value, than those worker produce.
Today, the Capitalist use other lever to pressurize labor prices, such as mass immigration, and relocation in cheap labor countries.

>>19778361
Ok, but then we both agree that the worker needs access to means of production to be able to create commodities.
That means that the access to means of production has a tangible economic value and should be included in the equation

>>19778349
What happens if people don't buy the commodity produced and the capitalist venture doesn't generate any revenue? Who pays for the operation costs?

>>19778385
>That means that the access to means of production has a tangible economic value and should be included in the equation
Not really, because those means of production were bought with the surplus labor of the workers. Extracted by the Capitalist to the workers, and then use to paid for those means of production. And those means of production are themselves the product of work from the proletarians, working in the factory producing the means of production.
In Capitalism, the simple fact that someone "own" a machine, entitle him to take a surplus value from the workers working on this machine. We marxists say that it's exploitation. When someone get's value that he didn't create himself, it's exploitation.

>>19778400
Sure, when the Capitalist doesn't sell his products, he loose money, and in this PARTICULAR circumstance, the wage worker gets more money than value the Capitalist gets. One can say that the surplus value was indeed created, it's the Capitalist fault for not being able to sell it. Or, it is simply that the markets are saturated, which is another reason Capitalism is shit. Markets get saturated. Value was created by the workers, but since the Capitalist didn't sell the t-shirt, he couldn't transform this value into Capital.
Anyway, reasoning by exception, the bankrupt case, is not valid, since most of the time, Capitalists, especially blue chip companies Capitalists, make a lot of money from exploitation. I will not pity them.

>>19778409
>When someone get's value that he didn't create himself, it's exploitation.
If a worker gets to use a machine that he didn't produce, is it exploitation?

>>19778425
Most companies aren't blue chip companies, are they? Most start-ups fail and only 25% of businesses survive for more than 15 years.
It seems to me like I am not the one reasoning with exceptions

>>19778309
In fairness, I never said you were parasites (which would imply that you only take from a given organism). Just that you have a vastly negative influence upon the world and humanity from any sane perspective. From the capitalistic (= "value loving" in the most materialistic-quantitative sense) paradigm you would be viewed as the most valuable members of society. The easiest way to validate this viewpoint is by ignoring my personal opinion and looking at the opinion of every pre-European-Renaissance culture, which were unilaterally opposed to the institution of usury (even prior to Christianity and Islam, the Roman Empire considered it a debauched and ignoble institution). It would be more accurate to describe the usury-based financial industries as a type of cancer or rarefying bacteria (which produces exponentially increasing amounts of gaseous and putrefied, homogenized matter as byproducts of its inevitable chemical progression towards the state of ultimate decomposition).

>>19778459
I would refute by stating that we live better nowadays than the people of pre-Renaissance, so we must be doing something right

>>19778474
I would refute that by saying that we don't.

>>19777971
>This t shirt has two values; use value and exchange value. You can use this to protect your body and flex your style, and this t shirt is priced $60.
I don't give a shit about that shirt there it has no use value or exchange value

all the people in my region think the same, thus proving your theory of value is stupid

>>19778487
what metric would you use to measure the quality of life?

>>19778507
One which is qualitative and not based on USD per hour.

>>19778082
shhhh don't mention risks and time preferences

>>19778243
wise board, communism is a culture if you study it in depth, you can't refute a culture with reasoning

>>19778254
>If after this initial investment, the company is profitable, all new value created, is created by the proletarians working in the factory.
value isn't created you dummie, it's perceived

that's why someone will value an idea enough to work on it and others will call it trash, same applies to products

why are Marxists so fucking dumb?

>>19778309
the problem with the financial industry isn't the business itself but the practices the industry created as safeguards and loopholes
https://youtube.com/watch?v=CJafuvqfzFo

I had to learn from an ex broker rabbi about "investment advisors" and what they can do with your money if you sign with them

>>19778556
marxists are not dumb, just power-hungry
exploitation is their justification to get into a position of power

>>19778278
>He does not because "surplus value, surplus labor" do not exist. Those are mere theoretical elaborations. You are paid according to what you contractually are obligated to work for
not just that, if the capitalist has a loss the worker still got the money minus the "surplus value" he supposedly got robbed of, yet for some reason the product was valued under what the worker was payed for, which means the worker robbed the capitalist according to marxist logic

this never ending fight of employee and employer can only create a social breakdown, which is why Californians leave for Texas

>>19778330
>Yes it does exist you Capital apologist. If surplus value didn't exist, where does value produced in a factory come from
from the consumers you mouthbreather nigger, why do you think people value belle delphine bath water? you seriously believe it's because of the time it took her to take a bath?

>>19778082
Ideally risk should be collectivized and capitalists are already compensated way beyond the level of risk they take on

>>19778346
an even better question to ask is why the worker isn't payed in t-shirts if they have the same value to him surplus value wise

>>19778349
>SURPLUS VALUE, created by the workers
work doesn't create value, it creates an object which was valued before the creation of that instance, either by the inventor or by the consumer

this alone ends the labor theory of value if you have a thinking brain

>>19778361
>He needs him to give him a wage, because he doesn't own the means of production to produce the t-shirts. The Capitalist is hoarding the means of production
nothing stops the worker of taking a loan and build that means of production, like the majority of "capitalists" have done in this century and the past one

of course, due to selection bias only the successful survive, the rest default and go work at McDonalds

>>19778593
>Ideally risk should be collectivized
so if companies fuck up they are rescued by taxpayers?

me worker smelly yum yum mr big man mr beard man mr boss man mr karl tum tum marx man i put my yums yums on just for you mister master mister mustard i love you i put my yum yums on i love you yummy la la i put it in my tim tim tum tum yes oh yes i put the money money inside so soft yes so warm yes ribby bibby yes my rubby ducky yes yes my yum yum mister yum yum mister worker yes i work for the tum tum time time my time is for you mister yum yum

>>19778569
yes I know but the mass of idiots aren't usually sociopaths, just really really dumb and ignorant about communism's track record

it isnt possible for a theory to say at the same time that ideas do not exist separately from history, that ideas exist only by their material incarnation in history (I.em Marxism), and then to say that their entire history for a century (China, Cuba, soviet Russia, camboja, etc.) does not compromise it in any way, and that it as an ideal remains pure and untouchable in the heaven of Platonic ideas. This is charlatanism

>>19778637
It seems to me that you operate under the assumption that you will be able to change their view if only you provide them with enough historical facts.
I do not believe that it will work. They are willfully ignorant because they lust for the power that marxism promises them

>>19778243
Well gee Bill I wonder why the anarchocapitalists don't want any of our authoritarian communism.

>>19778425
Listen here you idiot, let me tell you what real communism is before you waste any more time on this garbage

In dictionaries and in the heads of the semi-illiterate people in universities, the difference between capitalism and communism is that of a "mode of production", or, more specifically, of the "ownership of the means of production", private in one case, public in the other. But this is the self-definition that communism gives itself: it is an ideological slogan, a rallying symbol of militancy, not an objective definition.

Objectively, the complete statization of the means of production has never existed and will never exist: it is an economic impossibility. Ludwig von Mises demonstrated this as early as 1921, and after a few feeble whimpers, the communists gave up trying to challenge him: they knew and know that he was right.

In all communist regimes around the world, a considerable portion of the economy has always remained in the hands of private investors. At first, clandestinely, under the closed eyes of a government aware that the economy could not survive without it. Later, declared, and officially, under the name of "perestroika" or whatever. Everything indicates that the participation of private capital in the economy was even greater in some communist regimes than in several so-called "capitalist" nations.

This shows, as clearly as possible, that communism is not a mode of production, it is not a system of ownership of the means of production. It is a political movement that has a totally different objective, and to which the symbol "public ownership of the means of production" serves only as a hypnotic pretext to control the masses: it is the carrot that draws the donkey hither and thither, without it ever arriving or being able to arrive at the very promising and unfeasible "communist mode of production.

However, if they let private initiative run free, because they knew that the economy is by nature the most uncontrollable part of social life, all communist governments on all continents did the possible and the impossible to control what was controllable, what did not depend on unforeseeable circumstances but on the operation of a few channels of action directly accessible to government intervention.

These channels were: political parties and movements, the media, popular education, religion, and cultural institutions. By dominating a limited number of organizations and groups, the communist government could thus directly control the politics and behavior of the entire civil society, without the slightest need to exercise an equally draconian impossible control over the production, distribution, and trade of goods and services.

This is the real definition of communism: effective and total control of civil and political society under the guise of a "mode of production" whose advent will and must continue to be postponed for centuries upon centuries.

>>19778082
>deserve

Morality isn't real you fucking moron.

>>19778556
>value isn't created you dummie, it's perceived

Yeah the 200 billion Musk owns is just an opinion lol, if you disagree, the money suddenly stops being worth anything.

>Right-wingers in charge of critique

>>19778706
The actual practice of communism brings with it the total denial of the basic principle that gives it its theoretical foundation: the principle that politics, culture, and social life in general depend on the "mode of production." If they did, a communist government could not survive for long without completely statizating the ownership of the means of production.

Quite the contrary, communism has only survived, and still survives, on its ability to postpone indefinitely the fulfillment of this absurd promise. This, therefore, is neither its essence nor its definition: it is the false pretext it uses to dictatorially control society.

Betraying its promises is therefore not a "deviation" from the communist program: it is its essence, its permanent nature, the very condition of its subsistence.

Understandably, it is this same dual and slippery character that allows it to deceive not only the mass of its adherents and militants, but even its declared enemies: the capitalist businessmen. As soon as they are persuaded of the Marxist precept that the mode of production determines the course of social and political life (and it is almost impossible that they do not end up being convinced of this, since the economy is their own sphere of action and the major focus of their interests), the conclusion they draw from this is that, as long as a certain margin of action for private initiative is guaranteed, communism will remain a vague, distant, and even purely imaginary threat.

Meanwhile, they let the communist government invade and dominate ever larger areas of civil society and politics, until the point is reached where the only freedom left - for a few, of course - is to make money. On the condition that they are good boys and do not use money as a means to conquer other freedoms.

At the first sign that a businessman, relying on money, dares to have his own opinions, or to let his employees have them, the government tries to remind him that he is only the provisional beneficiary of a state concession that can be revoked at any moment.

This is how a communist government takes over everything around it, without anyone wanting to admit that they are already living under a communist dictatorship. From behind, the more experienced communists laugh: "Ha! Ha! Those idiots think that what we want is to control the economy! What we want is to control their brains, their hearts, their lives."

And this is all by design, how do you think communism can ever appear without the total control of every single political, military, cultural and religious resource in society? What else would you expect, if not for a dictatorship, in order for the "proletariat" to overthrown the entire "bourgeois" system? Only power can trump more power, no? So the entire goal of communists is to acquire power over every single atom of the reality and keep that power indefinitely until some commie has the idea of merging all beings into a soup without consciousness.

>>19778731
Correct, if every nation and business decided to not honor the US dollar then the dollar is worthless outside of what assets are controlled by the nation (military, resources, etc). In your instance Musky man's money is in physical assets so even if he decided to sell in zimbabwe rocks he would still receive an equivalent amount of money for his assets.

>>19778309
>I work in the financial industry and I believe that we provide a valuable service to society.

Of course you believe that. If you didn't believe that and still worked there you would develop severe cognitive dissonance and probably end up killing yourself.

>>19778731
>Yeah the 200 billion Musk owns is just an opinion lol
yes, the opinion of his investors, in reality it's more likely his enterprise is a money laundering operation for NASA

and he doesn't "own" the 200 billion, it's almost all stocks, whose "value" fluctuates such that traders can get a living out of speculation

>if you disagree, the money suddenly stops being worth anything
you are so close to understanding...

>>19778744
>Correct, if every nation and business decided to not honor the US dollar

Which is just a horseshit sociological observation about social constructionism that isn't relevant to this discussion at all.

The American Constitution is also just an opinion, but that doesn't mean it's inconsequential to the lives of Americans if it was abolished tomorrow.

Fucking moron.

>>19778618
Holy based

>>19778672
so only primal argumentation works right? (public humiliation, expelling from social circles, regular beatings, etc.)

>>19778750
>"None of the billionaire's money is real, what are you whining about? :^)
>"Also workers are losers who deserve their shitty wages and working conditions, and if they strike, the state should either force them to go back to work or just outright murder them, but don't forget, none of this is actually real though ^^"

You bougie liberals really are bad faith scum of the Earth in more ways than one.

>>19778752
Human rights in general are an opinion :^). Memes aside you said "if you disagree, suddenly the money stops being worth anything" which is true. If you decide to start a business you can choose to be paid only in your memecoin of choice and not take payment in ANY legal tender, thus for the intents and purposes of your business Musk is broke.

>>19778706
>This is the real definition of communism: effective and total control of civil and political society under the guise of a "mode of production" whose advent will and must continue to be postponed for centuries upon centuries.
And... He didn't read Marx. Do you know about self management of the proletariat? Classless society, worker's councils, revolutionary Catalonia (1936)?
Do you know that what you describe as being communism is in fact bolshevism, which is, from the saying of Lenin himself, State Capitalism?

>>19778752
>Which is just a horseshit sociological observation about social constructionism that isn't relevant to this discussion at all.
so you're saying his observation is wrong because you don't like it?

>The American Constitution is also just an opinion, but that doesn't mean it's inconsequential to the lives of Americans if it was abolished tomorrow.
Do you realize your argumentation has the implicit notion people would still care about that constitution enough to create consequences?

>>19778741
>Quite the contrary, communism has only survived, and still survives, on its ability to postpone indefinitely the fulfillment of this absurd promise.
Yes, because it was not communism, but State Capitalism.
So Communism, in your head, bolshevism, in Russia, didn't survive because it was communism, but precisely because it was not communism, but State Catpialism. So "communism", survived, because it was not communism.

>>19778757
either that or offer them some other ideologies that promises them power.
Feminism/minority rights/environmentalism

>>19778783
>so you're saying his observation is wrong because you don't like it?

I'm saying it's a very shit argument because if money and wealth are just socially constructed things that simply exist on the power of belief alone, why should a billionaire get to keep it? I mean, I can't believe you libcucks are literally using postmodern goggledegook to defend capitalism, when the same gobbledegook can easily be used to justify expropriating everything he owns.

>>19778746
i am a software developer and in the privileged position to pick and choose my industry.
I used to work for a car company before and felt like I contributed nothing to society, I merely made the driving experience of some rich asshole slightly better. Now, I am participating in building a global payment infrastructure and it feels like my labor has much more meaning.

>>19778795
Money and wealth ARE socially constructed ideas and the reason the billionaire gets to keep it is because the majority believe that he should continue to keep it and do with it what he sees fit

>>19778741
You seriouisly need to read about what is State Capitalism. Ignorance can be cured.
By the way ignorant, neither Marx, nor Kautsky, or Luxemburg, ever said that bolshevism was communism. For Marx and Engels, it would have been State Capitalism already, has they have been foreseen State Capitalistic bolshevism (read Engels, socialism, scientific and utopic, or Marx's critique of the gotha program).
Kautsky and luxemburg criticized bolshevism, right from the begining. Kautsky even comparing bolshevism to serfdom.

>>19778760
>"Also workers are losers who deserve
please don't use an ought-out-of-is, just use hume's guillotine on yourself before i have to tell how the "deserve" part demands an extensive discussion

>and if they strike, the state should either force them to go back to work
the state is a criminal institutions according to libertarian ethics, unions aren't a heresy in capitalism, the problem is using the State to enforce the union's wishes, nothing wrong with collectives of workers boycotting their company with strikes voluntarily

>>19778780
>And... He didn't read Marx.
Any so-called Marxist who comes along saying that "communism has moved away from its original ideals," or the like, is either a complete ignorant or a dissimulated nigger.

The separation of real and ideal is an element of the BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY, which Marxism vehemently condemns. Communism, according to Marx, Lenin and all the classics of Marxism, is not, never has been and can never be a predefined "ideal" to be "realized" in practice. It is a movement that IS SELF-DEFINE IN PRACTICE AND THROUGH PRACTICE.

Therefore, we can only speak of "deviation" in the sense of infidelity to Marxist doctrine as a whole (including, of course, the theory of praxis) and not to a supposed original "ideal". Indeed, the word "deviation," in the communist camp, has always been used in the first sense. The second, devoid of any theoretical support in Marxism itself, only appeared belatedly, not as a scientifically acceptable concept for a Marxist, but as an improvised rhetorical expedient to attenuate, before the bourgeois media, the colossal vexation of genocidal totalitarianism.

>>19778808
Which is again, not relevant to this discussion. Responding to a criticism of capitalism as being systemically exploitative of workers with "none of it is real and is just kept alive by belief" is fucking teenage nihilism-tier argumentation and you should feel fucking bad.

>>19778813
Okay you are less stupid than the basic anti-marxist.
That said, you talk about deviation, but in my opinion, you cannot have communism, if you still keep COMMODITY, MONEY, WAGE-LABOR. Those three relations of production were kept by the bolsheviks. So, in my fucking opinion, and i maintain, bolshevism, by keeping COMMODITY, MONEY, WAGE-LABOR, couldn't have been, and wasn't, communism.

>>19778813
>please don't use an ought-out-of-is, just use hume's guillotine on yourself before i have to tell how the "deserve" part demands an extensive discussion
¨
You're a fucking retard. I'm literally responding to libs who precisely think a capitalist deserves being a billionaire because he accepts personal risk.

>>19778780
>Catalonia
You mean like Chaz but with supplies and military advisers from foreign national States? We saw how well "communist communes" fare when money runs out

>>19778790
>Yes, because it was not communism, but State Capitalism.
>>19778706
>Objectively, the complete statization of the means of production has never existed and will never exist: it is an economic impossibility

please learn how to read words, do one at a time, slowly

>>19778821
Except it is, fiat as a monetary system is not upheld by anything. At the end of the day the modern monetary system is not held up by gold nor silver nor assets. The government can decide to just print more money because they can, and people will still accept it because it's government tender. While that obviously isn't sustainable in ANY world due to very real risks of hyper inflation when you get into the intricacies of monetary trading the underlying principle of modern money being a fucking imaginary system with imaginary numbers that you don't even need paper for anymore is true. Disregarding this fact invalidates any argument of labor or capital

>>19778846
>Disregarding this fact invalidates any argument of labor or capital

Lol shut the fuck up you retarded libertarian. It doesn't matter what monetary policy rules a country, a capitalist still gets wealthy only on the backs of other people's labor.

>>19778846
No shit central bank ex nihilo created money. You think you taught us classical marxist something? Marx criticized the england private central bank in Das Kapital volume 1.
Do not come and say you know it all because you discovered ex nihilo money.
By the way, with a 100% gold backed money, modern Capitalism couldn't work, because 100% gold backed money, is most likely deflationist, which would have as consequences to severely slow down economic growth. In any case, even if this was applied (100% gold backed currency), it would not solve the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, combined to market saturation, which is Capitalism final, and terminal, crisis. Which is happening, right now.

>>19778618
/thread

>>19778865
Yes, I don't want modern capitalism to work, its controlled by an international clique that has no regard for my culture or traditions. The tendency of profit decline and market saturation is also due to centralized banking being used to repeatedly bail out corporations that shouldn't survive. The only thing a national bank, independent of international finance, should do is determine loans for new businesses that can compete and innovate when old companies die under their own bloat.

>>19778799
>Now, I am participating in building a global payment infrastructure
>he willingly working to building the mark of the beast system by integrating your bank information to your vaccine status
fuck you nigger

>>19778716
ok so let's continue to explore workers

>>19778593
>Ideally risk should be collectivized
speaking of ideals is easy when you don't have to deal with the practical problems from such stupidity, such as incentivizing indecision, incentivizing corruption and passing the shit to the next administrator, and so on

>>19778898
Or you know, you can just simply admit that you don't care about worker's rights and that you have already picked a side in an existential conflict instead of inventing morality tales.

>>19778593
>capitalists are already compensated way beyond the level of risk they take on
if you mean central bankers that only survive because of the State saving their asses through legal theft (taxes) i agree, otherwise companies get revenue providing services, so the more the capitalist makes money the better, assuming there is competition of course

and about your weird notions of who deserves what and how much
https://mises.org/library/were-taught-revere-schoolteachers-so-why-are-they-paid-so-little

>>19778886
>Yes, I don't want modern capitalism to work, its controlled by an international clique that has no regard for my culture or traditions.
And that's bullshit. Private property of the means of production is private property of the means of production. It gives Capital accumulation, profit, pressure on wages, relocation, imperialism, cultural destruction and destruction as a mean to render the proletariat idiotic.
Whether the Capitalist class is jewish or goyim, the results is the same.
No, i don't give to shit to replace Shekelstein by Henri Ford. By the way, you already have quite a lot of goyim superclass: Rockefeller, Morgan, Astor, Onasis, Dupont, Clinton, Bush, Sinclair, Johnson, the Li family in asia, etc...
> The tendency of profit decline and market saturation is also due to centralized banking being used to repeatedly bail out corporations that shouldn't survive.
No. You didn't get the economy right. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is due to constant increase in productivity, which make possible to produce more for the same labor time, which decrease, with competition, the price of the products. Which means the Capitalist has to sell more in order to make the same profit. But then markets get saturated. And it's the end. That's literally what is happening, i mean, right now. And is the cause of negative interest rates.

>>19778780
>Classless society
to enforce such a thing hierarchy is needed thus creating new classes, by contradiction a "classless" society is impossible

>worker's councils
who watches the watcher? another council of course who watches the watcher? another council of course who watches the watcher? another council of course who watches the watcher? another council of course who watches the watcher? another council of course...

and without profits and losses there are zero mechanisms of self-regulation besides a boot on your face, which of course leads to the point of tyrannical regimes by design being the goal deep embedded in communist theory

>>19778254
>He does all this with the surplus value

OK, and? Is value supposed to be zero sum?

>>19778955
>to enforce such a thing hierarchy is needed thus creating new classes, by contradiction a "classless" society is impossible

Not him, but classless in Marxist terminology doesn't mean there are no distinctions between people. Doctors and surgeons would still be a "class" of people who have a specific kind of expertise that other people don't have, but Marxism is talking about classlessness in the economic sense, e.g no class exists to exploit another like under feudalism and capitalism.

>>19778811
>You seriouisly need to read about what is State Capitalism
"state capitalism" is the only possible arrangement of communist projects since the complete statization of ecnomy is physically and theoretically impossible as demonstrated by mises
>no private property = no markets
>no market = no prices
>no prices = no data
>no data = no central planning
>no central planning = no planned economy

as i said just read, please dont force me to explain sentences for you, communim apologists tend to resort a lot to that when confronted by arguments they cant respond

>>19778932
What you do not understand, is that without central bank ex nihilo created money, aka quantitative easing, aka money printing, Capitalism would have already fallen. Because the markets are saturated, the profit is too low, and the only way to hide this, is to print fake money.
You do not understand how this work.

>>19778955
>who watches the watcher?
The proletariat. What do you not understand about self-management?

>>19778925
>Or you know, you can just simply admit that you don't care about worker's rights
instead of pretending your "hegemony" will work on me, let me explain to you the difference of a right and a privilege

For a right to be genuinely valid it is necessary that we all, as human beings, have the ability to enjoy that same right at the same time and in the same way.

The obviousness of this statement comes from the fact that for something to be truly a right, all other human beings must logically have that same right. There can be no logical conflict or contradiction. An individual cannot, without falling into contradiction, claim to possess a right and at the same time deny this right to others. To do so would be the equivalent of admitting that this right is not really a right, but a privilege.

Therefore, it must be possible for all individuals to enjoy this alleged right simultaneously, without any logical contradiction.

If, when I exercise a right that I claim to possess, I am making it impossible for someone else to exercise that same right at the same time, then my action implies that this supposed right is exclusive to me. My action implies that such a right is mine alone, and not someone else's. What is a right for me is a third party obligation. In other words, it is not a right, but a privilege.

Basic example. If I claim to have the right to receive free health care services, then in practice I am saying that someone else has a duty to provide these services to me - or, more realistically, I am saying that someone else has a duty to pay for me to receive these services.

That is, another individual has to have his or her income (property) confiscated in order to pay for my medical services.

Obviously, this other person, from that moment on, no longer has the same right that I have. My right is to receive free services; his "right" is to fund these services for me. My right has created a duty for this person: he is now obliged to perform an action that he did not necessarily want to perform.

Although we are both equally human, this person's freedom of choice has been subordinated to my freedom of choice. That right I granted to myself (free health care) is being denied to this other person, for he, in taking on the burden of paying for my health care, has lost his "right" to free health care.

In order for me to acquire a right, this person had to bear an obligation. Worse still: he has had his property plundered, which would be a blatant assault on her property rights.

>>19778965
You can simply have data about the needs of everybody. Through a voting mechanism for example.
Regarding production, 100 hours of worked hours, equal 100 hours of consumption.
Market economy is dead by the way. See the negative interest rates, cause by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, combined with market saturation.
Markets self-saturated themselves. Markets is not something anymore. It doesn't even exist in 2022. It only is maintained totally artificially alive, throught massive money printing, making people believe that there is value creation, "growth", when growth is not possible anymore, due to, again, the falling rate of profit, combined with market saturation. You better get this, because we will repeat it, as long as necessary.

>>19778951
>constant increase in productivity
This would still happen under communism as the needs of a growing number of people no? And the capitalist doesn't have to sell more to make the same profit as quantity does not equal quality. For example I'm more likely to buy an expensive product once that will last 10 to 15 years minimum vs a cheap piece of shit that's a fraction of the price that lasts two years. I know not everyone is like this, but it does stand in contrast to a pure quantitative model of profit.
>market saturation causing negative interest rates
Just fine banks if they set their interest rates to a negative

>>19778995
>The proletariat. What do you not understand about self-management?
I prefer the terminology worker, the "proletariat" are people who cannot do anything other than generate more prole, by definition they are incapable of governing themselves or others

The evidence so far throughout history is that there is no such thing as self-management without hierarchies and public hierarchies tend to attract psychopaths who are very good at manipulating and forming groups to benefit themselves.

Your reasoning in ideals is the same statists thought would make the separation of powers work, but of course some of the powers corrupt the other.

>>19779003
Below I present two lists. The first lists the items that I personally believe you are entitled to. The second is a list of things to which you are not entitled

Things you are entitled to:

1. not to have your life taken from you (unless you attempt to take the life of another without justification or self-defense grounds);

2. to think what you want

3. to speak what you want (which is nothing more than the verbal or written expression of item #2) as long as you do so using your own means.

4. retain material ownership of what you have built yourself, what you have won as a gift, and what you have acquired by peaceful and voluntary transaction.

5. undertake and earn a living doing whatever you want, as long as you don't harm the lives and property of others (which is a consequence of #4).

6. to raise and educate their children as they wish

7. to live in peace and freedom, as long as it doesn't threaten the peace and freedom of others.

Things you are not entitled to:

1. high-speed, broadband internet;

2. cheeseburgers, wine, or an iPhone;

3. someone else's house, car, yacht, jet, rent, salary, business, or bank account;

4. living off the labor of others with whom you have not made a voluntary agreement (you have no right to enslave anyone or even to confiscate a portion of other people's earnings)

5. forcing a healer, a renowned surgeon, or any professional between those two extremes to treat you;

6. schools, colleges, contraceptive methods, pads, colonoscopies, or stadiums financed via taxes (i.e., with money coercively confiscated from others)

7. any property that is not yours, no matter how much you really want and believe you have the right to own it;

8. stipulating how other people should educate your children (especially forcing them to put them in schools)

9. any free good or service - unless, of course, the rightful owner chooses to distribute them freely;

10. anything that some politician has promised you by saying you have a right to it (housing, transportation, leisure, culture, contraception, happiness, beauty, etc.).

Yes, there are some gray areas. For example, while I believe you have the right to raise and educate your children as you wish, mistreatment, abuse and neglect are not defensible. However, let's keep the focus on the core principles.

>>19779003
Except anon, only a tiny sliver of the population have the opportunity to become wealthy capitalists, and the few who succeed also spend a lot of their time ensuring that they will never have competition by bribing the monopoly of violence to create laws for their benefit. The Koch brothers for example are very known for their libertarianism, and why wouldn't they be libertarian when they have already won the competition over scarce resources? It's literally just in their self-interest to create a society in which it is even harder for others to become like them, because the more people like them that exists, the less resources they will have the opportunity to accrue.

But it's very cute that you think reality actually works according to some kind of Kantian moral logic though, you must be an academic.

>>19779038
Look at the list again, carefully. What is the essential difference between the nature of the first list and the nature of the second list?

In the first list, nothing is required of third parties except that they leave you alone. Nothing is confiscated, nothing is expropriated, and no positive action is imposed. Other people's freedom, property and lives remain intact. No liabilities are created.

In the second list, however, in order for you to have the right to something, other people have to be forced to provide that something for you. The freedom, property and even the lives of others are negatively affected. This is a monumental difference.

The first list covers "natural rights," which are also called "negative rights". They are natural because they are inherent to human nature; they are rights that all of us as human beings enjoy by the simple virtue of being human. They derive from our essential nature as unique and sensible individuals. And they are negative because they impose no obligations on others except a commitment not to harm. Again, the only imposition that such rights impose on third parties is not to perform a certain action.

>>19779003
What about the privilege of the owner of the means of production, to get a rate of surplus value of 200% (rate of exploitation), only because he is the owner of the means of production? Isn't that plunder of the proletariat?

>>19779034
>This would still happen under communism as the needs of a growing number of people no?
In communism, necessary labor would be higher, if increase of the productivity is wanted. However, there would be no surplus labor.
In Communism, you can have increase in productivity, if needed. But it doesn't mean market saturation, for the simple reason, that there is no market. You'll only have more productivity, and thus less labor used, for the same amount produced. But that would not saturate the market, since there would be no markets.
>And the capitalist doesn't have to sell more to make the same profit as quantity does not equal quality. For example I'm more likely to buy an expensive product once that will last 10 to 15 years minimum vs a cheap piece of shit that's a fraction of the price that lasts two years.
Luxury products are somehow shielded from the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. But you cannot have a whole economy with only luxury product.
Cheap products, which constitute, allegedly, the most part of the market, are hit hard by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, combined with market saturation.
>Just fine banks if they set their interest rates to a negative
Lol. And they say we classical marxism are the unrealistic one. Negative interst rate are not done because banks are evil. On the contrary, banks are forced to have negative interest rate, because, due to the TRPF, combined with market saturation, positive interest rate would have as consequences that the loans would never be reimbursed by the industry. The industry CANNOT sell it's production anymore, in order to get more Capital, due to market saturation.

>>19779038
>The evidence so far throughout history is that there is no such thing as self-management without hierarchies and public hierarchies
We will see about that.