/lit/ - Literature

>>20046879

marx is a retard who believed centrally planned economies would work. so did Engels

>>20046884
marx did not argue for central planning

>>20046894
well he blatantly did so

>>20046902
where

>>20046894

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/l.htm

>>20046879
>Now! What are some books that deal with my exclusionary rightwing autism?

>>20046910
this is not economic planning. socialist 'economy' is a contradiction in terms.
>>20046915
what a disgustingly moronic post. maybe, perhaps two different classes have different interests?

>>20046923

>Such a prospect becomes a real possibility when the working class takes political power:

>“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; ... When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation ...” [Communist Manifesto]

ffs read the link

>>20046923
They would probably be interested in owning the means of their distribution and services, and work less at it. That shit’s soul crushing sometimes.

>>20046930
i read the fucken link and this isn't 'economic planning' in the meaning most commonly attributed to the term.

at the point in which the proletariat seizes power, the productive forces of capitalism has reached it's limit. there are no 'new markets to tap into'. once there is no more room for capital to expand it destroys itself. that is why the proletariat seizes production, to keep capital from destroying itself.

>>20046931
>They would probably be interested in owning the means of their distribution and services
you cannot own a 'service' those individuals are the service, and they rely on the production of commodities in order to be employed. walmart worker requires exploitation of third world factory worker in order to stay employed.

>>20046943

>centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state

This is central economic planning.

>>20046930
>working class
>takes political power

Contradiction in terms

>>20046969
not 'state' in the liberal sense.

>>20046980

>not 'state' in the liberal sense

Says you

>>20046978

>Contradiction in terms

the relevant part is the quote from the manifesto

>>20046983
>Says you
I know you are coming from an anti-marx perspective, but your interpretation of Marx is precisely where Lenin screwed up.
Yes, 'says me' but Marx NEVER talked about having a giant bureaucratic entity regimenting all production. rather that production will be carried out in accordance to social requirements. overproduction would simply be unnecessary because it would have no use. marx never spoke of planning outside socialism.

>>20046996

>rather that production will be carried out in accordance to social requirements

Who decides what those requirements are

>>20047005
democratically. you survey everyone, what do they need? for example how much clothes, appliances, electronics, is required. the pre-perquisite for communism again is an advanced industrial society.

in lower stages of communism there would still be wage labor. marx never said otherwise.

>>20046943
They work for bosses who take their time from them. Walmart workers would rather not be middlemen in the global exploitation racket, but the name of the game is they must work the chain-gang or die in a gutter. Do you get their motivations yet? They’re not that different from from the thing-makers

>>20047023

>democratically. you survey everyone, what do they need

So for disbursions of lumber, steel, apples, fuel and every single product created since the industrial revolution you survey everybody. weekly.

who conducts the surveys? Who actions their outcomes?

>>20047032

>exploitation racket, but the name of the game is they must work the chain-gang or die in a gutter

Name someone who starved to death due to unemployment in the USA in the last decade

>>20047023

What if nobody wants to build microwaves? How do you get a microwave?

>>20047034
>survey for every single product
now who said this? general trends in statistics already help calculate this. you are aware that companies already plan how much lumber and steel to produce?

>who conducts the surveys
the people who are employed to do so
>Who actions their outcomes?
the people who are employed to do so

why are you so concerned with what communism will look like. this is not the primary matter Marx deals with, but rather capitalist economies and the social conditions in which it creates.

>>20047032
>Walmart workers would rather not be middlemen
but they are, and while they are middlemen their economic interests are different from that of industrial proletariat.

>>20047050
>the absolute state

>>20047042
the manufacture of products by the time of communism will essentially be no different than pulling a few levers to operate a machine. think of an assembly line, yet MORE advanced. the manufacture of microwaves would probably be no different from the manufacture of automobiles. the machine does most of the work, the worker only operates it. it is likely that most manufacturing will be completely automated and skilled engineers will operate on the machines which operate on said products?

but what if no one wants to be an engineer? well society will create an incentive for it.

>>20047058
?
marx doesn't spend his time talking about what communism will look like.

>>20047050

> you are aware that companies already plan how much lumber and steel to produce?
Yes, and how it is decided on how those materials are used is based on who buys them. Since we're a communist utopia,someone has to decide if it's used to build a bridge in our capital city or a railroad track to our farmlands. Who decides that?


>the people who are employed to do so
Who hired them? On what authority do they make decisions on distribution? Who fires them if they are incompetent?

>y are you so concerned with what communism will look like. this is not the primary matter Marx deals with, but rather capitalist economies and the social conditions in which it creates.
Because if you're going to replace capitalism with something else, you should replace it with something that isn't significantly worse.

>>20047061
>the manufacture of microwaves would probably be no different from the manufacture of automobiles

So a 13 year waiting list to buy the worst car ever made? Doesn't sound like a good system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

>but what if no one wants to be an engineer? well society will create an incentive for it.
"Society" will get together and decide what that incentive is? When / where do they meet?

>>20046879
IT workers produce commodoties (software and websites) with labour. So they are proletarians.

>>20047082

>IT workers produce commodoties (software and websites) with labour. So they are proletarians

I have a team of developers that write code in the cloud on their home laptops. Howndo they seize the means of production?

>>20047065
>Since we're a communist utopia,someone has to decide if it's used to build a bridge in our capital city or a railroad track to our farmlands. Who decides that?
they decide by having a fight to the death. what difference does it make?
>Who hired them? On what authority do they make decisions on distribution? Who fires them if they are incompetent?
The Cheka
>Because if you're going to replace capitalism with something else, you should replace it with something that isn't significantly worse.
no, it is not 'replacing capitalism' with something else as if a system is something you can just put on or take off. this was not the concern of the communists. the concern of the communists was the liberation of the proletariat. capitalism did not 'replace' feudalism. capitalism emerged out of feudalism, the social conditions which feudalism created resulted in capitalism. and thus socialism will result from the social conditions in which capitalism created, and in such a system it is the workers who will decide on the distribution of wealth. going into details on how 'socialism will look like' is irrelevant because that is not the point of marxist economic analysis.
>>20047069
>"Society" will get together and decide what that incentive is? When / where do they meet?
they'll have a fucking trial by death. again it makes no difference.

>>20047087
proletariat sells his labor to work on the means of production
what are the means of production in this case? there are none. they are a different class.
>>20047087
they don't. they are not proletariat.

>>20047090

>workers who will decide on the distribution of wealth

I see, so bob the landscaper will be a key stakeholder in determining r&d budgets for genomics and quantum computing.

flawless. I can't wait to see the NPV calculations he scratches out on the back page of a lawnmower manual.

Marx was a moron.

>>20047090

>the cheka


See how quickly your ideas collapse under scrutiny

>>20047036
People die on the streets here all the time. But I’m talking about them joining the so-called lumpenproletariat. We don’t make them household names, but I saw an RT documentary about the opioid epidemic. The upper prole makers-of-things make more money, are generally more secure, but could still end up that far down too under some circumstances. The burger flippers and other such people are lately being called the precariat

>>20047054
Explain how.

>>20047112

so your claim is if the people working at walmart lost their jobs, the inevitable outcome is fentanyl addiction.

Do they shoot up before or after final paycheck? I am fascinated by your reality.

>>20047101
idiot. we are not even speaking the same language.
>>20047109
the 'communist system' is not the central idea of marxism. in fact all throughout this discussion we have not even TOUCHED the bread and butter of marx.

>>20047087
That might seem inconceivable to tech illiterate zoomers, but all that cloud technology still relies on big machines in data centers.

>>20047112
>Explain how.
if the factory worker does not produce commodity the service worker is out of job, because the service worker is employed to distribute product for a wage. he himself does not make a product using means of production, but provides service.

>>20046910
I like how the very link you posted shows very blatantly neither Marx nor Engels arguing for any particular mode of economic organization. This is of course because neither of them were ever economists.
>>20046879
Your analysis is by and large correct, Marx writes about this in the second and third volumes of Capital.

>>20047119
The original posit ITT is still just splattered there waiting.
People either get another job-cell to slave in or they fail, and sometimes keep trying from their car, or their friends couch, and sometimes become addicts and end up on the streets or rails. Did you never think about them before?
They’re a lower rung worker. What of it? Are we going to shame them for having cellphones too?

>>20047132
This isn’t an answer. How are their economic interests different?

>>20047136

To reiterate, you believe that losing a shitty job leads inevitably to an expensive drug addiction. If walmart workers lose their jobs they all die in a gutter from opioids.

not sometimes

>>20047131

>That might seem inconceivable to tech illiterate zoomers, but all that cloud technology still relies on big machines in data centers

that's infrastructure, not the means of production

>>20047134
>Your analysis is by and large correct, Marx writes about this in the second and third volumes of Capital.
Thank you, I will read them eventually. Marx is just so rich and I can spend a lifetime delving into everything which he has produced. I am slowly going through Kapital and trying to take everything in and genuinely engage with the work. If you can tell me where in Kapital 2 and 3 the two discuss this I would greatly appreciate it because I would like to read them right now.

What is the state of scientific socialism today can you tell? What is worth reading? What is the course of action?

Thank you.

>>20047134

>I like how the very link you posted shows very blatantly neither Marx nor Engels arguing for any particular mode of economic organization

state controlled production is central economic planning, that's what it means

>>20047153

>I am slowly going through Kapital

Are labor and profit correlated?

>>20047134
>This is of course because neither of them were ever economists.
explain

>>20047157
Why would they not be?

>>20047168

>Why would they not be?

Marxists always get this wrong. It's because Marx is wrong.

If 100 engineers design an iphone that generates 2 billion in sales and a different group of engineers design a blackberry that generates two million in sales, did the iPhone engineers generate 1000x more labor?

>>20047172
that's not what the labor theory of value says lol

>>20047173

value is correlated with profit, labor isn't.

>>20047179
value is a function of labor

>>20047180
Value cannot be a function of labor unless you redefine labor to be a metaphysical substance (something which cannot be physically measured without referring to value itself, thereby making it contingent upon value), as Marx does in the first chapter of the first volume of Capital. This is a mistake critics of Marx and his proponents don't usually acknowledge. Critics who haven't read anything will think that by "labor" Marx means simple hours of work, not distinguishing between "skill levels." Supporters of Marx will think taking the idea of labor in that metaphysical way is somehow congruent with a materialist paradigm. Both are wrong, and Marx is also wrong.

>>20047180
Basically, if you cannot measure labor (taken in its meaningful sense and not the base sense), then it is not a scientific reality. The whole supposedly scientific edifice falls away. Of course we can actually measure base labor, but it is meaningless and gets us no where. "Labor" is worthless taken by itself. Thus labor, taken in its meaningful, is a function of value, not the other way around. And this is where post-Marxist economic theories sprout out, and why the utility models today are so popular in comparison (at least to people who are not dogmatic and willing to view the world through a broader lens).

>>20047148
No need to reiterate your obfuscation. Just pipe down

what a fucking autistic thread, this retard asks for evidence that marx supported central planning, very clear evidence of his political program is linked, and of course the faggot leftist starts going into incoherent semantics and jargon about it's not REAL central planning and how it's not REAL socialism

>>20047050
corporatocracy. wonderful

>>20047151
>Themeans of productionis a concept that encompasses the social use andownershipof theland,labor, andcapitalneeded to producegoods,services, and theirlogisticaldistribution and delivery.
Infrastructure is a mean of production you deficient contrarian nigger

>>20046943
>once there is no more room for capital to expand it destroys itself

This could be the main error of Marxist theory. Why do they suppose that capital will run out of shit to market and produce? As we can observe, new gadgets, trinkets and service arise constatntly and the consumers lap it up. The desire for new commodities seems inexhaustible

>>20046879
Semi related but I wanted to ask: are uber and lyft drivers petite bourgeoisie and Marxists shouldn't support them because they already own their means of production and have no interest in a classless society?

>>20046879
>according to most communists

>>20047194
>durrr its not scientific because you measure it indirectly
by your logic gravity and mass arent scientific

>>20047680
No, it literally cannot be measured objectively, not even indirectly. It always requires "value", this unscientific and immeasurable idea, to have meaning. Gravity, mass, even the base idea of labor can be measured, labor in the Marxist sense cannot, therefore it is unscientific.

>>20046902
Source?

>>20046879
Well if you're a right wing nut youre just gonna call everything gay and anti jesus so why bother learning the nitty gritty details of revolutionary theory?

If you really want to learn revolutionary theory, like search for basic stuff and start reading, like, the most basic of it, you clearly don't know shit, start with introductory books not the actual sources and then move up from there, also youre gonna have to complement with some history as well.
You did not have a novel thought about revolutionary theory, you might disagree with marx, but in order to do so you have to learn about marx in the first place, and then whatever disagreement you have with it youll find someone else has stated it in a more elegant concise and well thought out way, youll learn about those and disagree with those.

Socio economical political behaviour of the human race as a whole is a complex subject that requires a lot of time to understand and master, who would have thought?

>>20046879
>how do service workers as a class have the same interest of industrial workers?
Because they are both exploited by the owners of the means of production? Profit is surplus value.

>>20046879
None of the books deal with this. You just wanted to make another commietranny thread. Aren't you tired of this? When will you understand that it just doesn't work?

>>20047042
If nobody wants to build microwaves, then nobody gets microwaves. If people want microwaves, then they will build them. This is true under every -ism.

>>20047715
You will never own the means of production.

>>20048200

>If people want microwaves, then they will build them

Hahahahha

>>20047180

>value is a function of labor

No, value is determined by demand, not labor. if you dig a ditch nobody wants, your labor has no value

>>20048378
>people don't build microwaves
Meds. Right now.

>>20048385
>Meds. Right now

Show me the microwave you built

>>20048388
>changing the goalpost
Show me your meds.

>>20048384
Price is determined by demand, value by labor
An unsold ditch is still a ditch and of more value than unmoved dirt for someone needing a ditch

>>20048441

>more value than unmoved dirt for someone needing a ditch

So you are saying that labor has no value unless there's demand for what it produces? Which is what I just said?

>>20048415

>Show me your meds

I will when I am done building a microwave

>>20048490
No because it is the value inherent of the ditch which a person seeks
Would you say food has no nutrition if you're not hungry?

>>20048505

>Would you say food has no nutrition if you're not hungry

I would say the nutrition in a spider has no value to me as I don't eat spiders.

>>20048497
Why are you building a microwave? You're acting up. Show me your meds right fucking now.

>>20048550

Show me your economics textbook

>>20048530
But the spider still has value objectively even if you are scared of bugs
facts dont care about your feelings

>>20048577

>But the spider still has value objectively even if you are scared of bugs

Sounds good, I will go outside and find a spider egg sac and seize the means of production
Then utopia emerges

>>20048580
>gets his value argument btfo'd
>"y-you're a utopianist!"

>>20048556
First microwaves, now textbooks. This is why your family puts you on so much medication.

>>20047101
t.braindead

>>20048600

hahaah you never even studied economics aaaaagahahaha

>>20048661
I have a PhD in economics from Harvard, so as a Doctor, I am telling you to take your meds.

>>20046910
>the state, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; ... When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation ...
It's centralization outside of commodity and wage labor. It's centralization of the needs of the workers, ridden of the owners of the means of production, exploiting them.
Obviously that is only for the transitional period, lower stage of communism.

>>20047154
No, because it's your petty mind, it refers to bolshevism, which was State Capitalism.
In the mind of Marx, it was a state controlled production in the hands of the workers, ridden of the owners of the means of production, without wage labor, commodity, money.
But your mind is too small to imagine what a world without wage labor, commodity, money is.

>>20047685
Except value correlates to labor time.
And market value is roughly -10%/+10% of labor time.
Not seeing a correlation between the quantity of labor, and the quantity of value, for industrial production, is refusing to admit reality.
> It always requires "value", this unscientific and immeasurable idea
Markets sure influence on value, but on margin. The core of the value is the quantity of labor contained in the industrial product. Then subjectivity indeed enter in the price of something, in a peripheral way.
Marx never said that the value is exactly the amount of labor anyway. Only that the main determinism of value is the amount of labor.

>>20048248
(not him) That's the point retard.

>>20048490
You don't get it. Social demand create production. Production require amount of labor. Value of item produced is proportional to amount of labor.
If there is absolutely no social demand, of course, something created with labor, but with absolutely no social demand, will be worth nothing.
On the other hand, something with little work, but with no real competitor on the market, will be sold more than the amount of labor it contains, until competitor enter the market, and dump the price. Just comes to my mind that it's exactly what happened to Dyson cyclotronic hoovers products. Five years ago, they were priced $500.
Today, you can find good quality of those cyclotronics hoovers with competitor brands for less than $100.
A Dyson only cyclotronic hoover market was a market with a huge margin. Huge profit,
A competitive cyclotonic hoover market, is a price which tend to gravitate toward production price. That is, the amount of dead and living labor, a product contains.
The most competitive an industrial market is, the most it tends towards production prices, that is the amount of labor (dead and living) it contains.

>it’s another conservatives misunderstanding Marx thread

sigh

I wanna live in a society where i work 14 hours a day for 3 bread cards and live in a hovel with 8 other people and be told im free from class exploitation bros.

>>20049296
>dude marxism is so heckin' DEEP bro
Fuck off.

>>20046879
Just because someone doesn't directly work in the industrial sector doesn't mean their labour time cannot be exploited. They're still ultimately needed within the C-M-C chain. Class isn't an occupation, its a structure. The purpose of the proletariat is to accumulate capital for the capitalist class through making their labour available to be exploited. In this way, anyone who is necessary to be exploited for the accumulation of capital is proletariat, such as unemployed people, who are necessary as the reserve labour army or nurses who are required to keep the proletariat healthy enough to work.

>>20046894
>marx did not argue for central planning
He did

>"I say on the contrary; the social movement will lead to this decision that the land can but be owned by the nation itself. To give up the soil to the hands of associated rural labourers, would be to surrender society to one exclusive class of producers."

>"The nationalisation of land will work a complete change in the relations between labour and capital, and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production, whether industrial or rural. Then class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis upon which they rest. To live on other people's labour will become a thing of the past. There will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself! Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organised in the most adequate manner. National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan. Such is the humanitarian goal to which the great economic movement of the 19th century is tending."
>>20046980
>not 'state' in the liberal sense.
So you're just doing solipsism. Gotcha.
>>20047023
This is retarded. We already this now. Why the fuck would we need socialism? Why are you re-inventing the wheel - what problem are you solving that society has?
>>20047112
>People die on the streets here all the time
Actually, no, more die from obesity than starvation in the United States. Most homeless people are drug addicts and bums. You people don't seemingly believe in personal responsibility or agency. Its always someone's else as to why the world's a problem and not you.
>>20047050
>why are you so concerned with what communism will look like.
Yeah, bro. Just trust the plan. Ignore the history of communism. It wasn't real communism, right? It'll totally work for the millionth time, right bro?

>>20047715
There's nothing "revolutionary" about Marx or communism. Its just a Talmudic scheme to give the government more power over the individual. Its rambling Jewish non-sense for faggots

>>20046884
Amazon is the world's most expansive, successful enterprise, run on a centrally planned system of economics.

>>20047042
Who the fuck WANTS to build microwaves now?

>>20050013
If Amazon is socialist - why do so many socialists hate Bezos?

>>20048556
oh, it's mr community college MBA who works in HR

>>20050013
If central planning already works well under capitalism; there's no need for communism or socialism then. I really don't understand this argument. You're just proving is adaptable. Unless you're really retarded, and think every business ought or can adopt Amazon's business model.

>>20050038
I'm not that guy, but it's funny how fucking stupid you are

>>20050050
Yeah, so you don't want to admit how dumb you sound. Its fine. When you get older, and get a job, you won't have all this free time dreaming about socialism instead of being a productive member of society.

The real proletariat is found in the third human (specifically in the East, China, Bangladesh, India, etc.) countries that have monopolized the industrial production of the world, they are the factory of the world. All in order to produce the consumerist and escapist whims of Westerners whose main social concerns are trans and lgbt bullshit. While the oriental worker suffers conditions of slave labor, child labor, etc. Capitalism needs this exploitation, its contradictions are also its reason for being, it is stupid to think that capitalism is ethical, when it is clearly a monopolistic and opportunistic system. Capitalism has enslaved the proletariat since its beginnings in the Industrial Revolution and until today, only that they moved the factories to the other side of the world, far from the western reality and its privileged material conditions.

>>20050077
>Writing all this non-sense because you're too afraid to just write a resume
dude..

>>20050062
>I'm not that guy

>>20050179
>I'm just gonna samefag because I'm too embrassed to own up to what I say
Jesus Christ Anon, its only 4chan, why are you so insecure. Everyone already know you're a loser in real life. You aren't saving face here.

>>20050224
meds and outside

>>20046879
>a proletariat is anyone who sells their labor for wages
No. Proletarians are propertyless working class, people without a reserve.

>>20050320
This. Why do people think "proletariat" is a fucking job occupation. Its a class.

>>20050367
Marxists shouldn't really be talking about occupations since they typically are university students without one.

>>20050013
What nation's economy does amazon run, exactly?

>>20050373
Yeah not like salt of the Earth working man conservatives like Tucker Carlson, heir to a massive corporate conglomerate who put on a lumber jack shirt and buy a shed so they can LARP as petty capitalists.

>>20050427
So your critique of capitalism is that you're envious of those who are successful in life? You're not really de-confirming any priors people had about you already m8. Carson has a daughter, a wife - he's rich. These are things you will never ever have.

>>20050427
Whataboutism. Communists should NOT be talking about occupations, period.

>>20050439
Oh come on, stop with the pathetic "hurr you just hate us cause you hate us" bullshit. Engles was a capitalist.

>>20050444
So Engles didn't have an occupation?

>>20046879
>the key feature of proletariat as a class is that they LABOR on the means of production
The majority of people that only income source is wages wouldn't be than and that's a retarded understanding.

>someone who works in a walmart or as a waiter does not work on the means of production. they only redistribute commodities
Marx explicitly deals with unproductive labour. Work exists that doesn't generate surplus value but is necessary for a market society to function nonetheless as overhead costs

>how do service workers as a class have the same interest of industrial workers?
Because they work for wages and are disposable. Industrial work progressively becomes a matter of just overseeing automated machinery. Some blue collar slob paid a lot for lifting boxes may think he's better than a McDonalds employee but that's a machine can quickly change that. The alternative view is certain types of labour is virtuous and that's where you get into populist right/left syndicalism/neo-luddism/etc.

>what are some books that deal with this?
Literally Marx, jesus

>>20050320
>No. Proletarians are propertyless working class, people without a reserve
What makes proletariat distinct is that they work on means of production. For exame, these people are not proletariat:
>The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants

Again, what makes proletariat distinct is that they work on a MEANS OF PRODUCTION which the bourgeoisie acts as a rentier of.

Learn how to read.

>>20050320
>No. Proletarians are propertyless working class, people without a reserve
What makes proletariat distinct is that they work on means of production. For exame, these people are not proletariat:
>The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants

Again, what makes proletariat distinct is that they work on a MEANS OF PRODUCTION which the bourgeoisie acts as a rentier of.

>>20050494
Where does he deal with unproductive labor.

>>20050494
You need to work on your English. I can't even understand what you're saying, and that probably means you shouldn't talk about economics at all.

>>20050494
>Industrial work progressively becomes a matter of just overseeing automated machinery.
Yeah, you've never worked in industry a day in your life. It shows.

>>20050515
Jesus just read or even just watch a YouTube video about Marx. A proletariat isn't distinguished by "working on means of production", every class does that, including peasants and even petty capitalists who own enough capital to hire workers and own capital but still have to work themselves.
A proletarian is someone who does not own capital or if they do its not used to make more capital (for example someone who is a wage laborer but owns their own house and but isn't a landlord, they just live in it) and who is exploited in order to accumulate capital.

>>20050538
The "proletariat" is just anyone that conforms to your political views. You're just being a sophist here. That's why Marxists were against the Canadian truckers. In practice, nothing you said is reflective of reality. You're just being a propagandist.

>>20050526
>Where does he deal with unproductive labor.
He explicitly deals with clerks, police and such already in volume 1 of capital

>>20050536
I said progressively. Take any industry and study the labour process involved over time. The physical role of human labour keeps decreasing and the role of monitoring machines that do things increases.

>>20050559
>He explicitly deals with clerks, police and such already in volume 1 of capital
Yes but where. I would like to read it right now. Clearly clerks are not proletariat, despite what >>20050538 says. Walmart workers do not produce surplus value, they do not work on capital.

>>20050559
>The physical role of human labour keeps decreasing and the role of monitoring machines that do things increases.
This isn't what's happening, retard. Machines are just making humans more productive per hour, reducing the amount of time they need to work. It has nothing do with automation. Innovation just increases time saving methods; it has nothing do with automation. You're a dumbass - completely.

>>20050567
>Walmart workers do not produce surplus value,
This can not be true considering Walmart produces an abundance of goods and services. You're being retarded and playing language games. Observe reality instead of doing solipsism.

>>20050567
how could walmart workers not produce a surplus if there's profits? how dumb are you people

>>20050463
>So Engles didn't have an occupation?
More deflection. Communists typically don't have occupations, so they should shut the fuck up about them. And so should you.

>>20050555
Marxists were against the truckers because it wasn't a proletarian movement, it was a petty-capitalist movement denounced by every truckers union in Canada. What were their demands? A lowering of health standards for workers and the fucking resignation of the government so it could be replaced with a more pro-petty capitalist one. No demand for an increase in pay, no demand for workers rights at all, just pure, distilled petty-capitalist greed and entitlement (and gifting by their leaders who made millions), rightly denounced by the working class.

>>20050567
You can't just say "despite" and then offer no rebuttal. Read Marx moron, Walmart clerks can still have their surplus labour value exploited, it doesn't matter if they directly make the commodities.

>>20050555
Not that guy but it's not a hard idea. Anyone that lives off wages is a proletarian.
It has noting to do with politics, hell most unions are hilariously corrupt but that doesn't mean anyone working in those industries are all of a sudden not "proletarian" because of that

>>20050567
I'm not digging through capital but there's this section from his theories of surplus value:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch04.htm

>>20050569
>Machines are just making humans more productive per hour, reducing the amount of time they need to work.
Consumption/demand for profit isn't constant. The role of labour in the process changes as it becomes more capital intensive. Society doesn't need to work less to survive and productivity can't accomplish that.

>Innovation just increases time saving methods
Innovation has never made society work less.

>>20050593
Monetary profit isn't value. Value is redistributed by the market process. If everything directly exchanged for it's value capitalism wouldn't work.

>>20050583
>This can not be true considering Walmart produces an abundance of goods and services
Wal-Mart is a distributor. It by and large does not produce goods, it purchases commodities from a supplier and employs people to provide a service, i.e cashier work, delivery, stocking.
A service is not a commodity.

How am I playing language games? How is this solipsism? This is quite literally materialism.

>>20046879
>according to most communists, a proletariat is anyone who sells their labor for wages
no, that's wrong.
>someone who works in a walmart or as a waiter does not work on the means of production
as a waiter they do. plates, tables, the restaurant building itself and so on are means of production of the restaurant service. they don't in walmart as far as it only deals with selling already produced commodities. but that's still not a basis for excluding walmart workers from the proletariat. you can mop store floor one year and factory floor the next year. how would that change your class position? either way you're a reserveless material for exploitation by capital.
>they only redistribute commodities.
waiters provide a service, which is a commodity.
>or what about say, an IT engineer.
an IT engineer is going to be paid from superprofits and quickly accumulate property for himself. that puts him in a different class position from a reserveless proletarian.
>how do service workers as a class have the same interest of industrial workers?
service workers aren't a class. the proletarians who happen to work in services have the same interest that the proletarians who happen to work in industry, i.e. to do away with their exploitation by abolishing capitalism. and an industrial specialist who e.g. gets a yearly sizable bonus in the form of the company stock so that after 10 years he basically becomes a part capitalist isn't a proletarian just because he works for a wage in a factory.
>what are some books that deal with this?
Capital

>>20050608
>You can't just say "despite" and then offer no rebuttal
I did offer a rebuttal. I'm sorry you are illiterate. Also see >>20050632

>>20050618
>I'm not digging through capital but there's this section from his theories of surplus value
Ty
>>20050649
A service is not a commodity.

>>20050656
>A service is not a commodity.
yes it is. it has use value and exchange value, which makes it a commodity. this is literally the first chapter of Capital

>>20050608
Marxists were against the truckers because they're always against workers who don't share their political views. This is just typical commie non-sense. Workers wanted control their work place standards, and Marxists said no, like they always do, because they're members of the elite who always assume they know better than the average man. Its just pure narcissism on your part.
>>20050618
>Anyone that lives off wages is a proletarian.
Actually, no, proletarian is a meaningless term. Marxists change the definition of it when it suits their political objectives. Really, you are just retards who assume workers are monolith when that's not even the case. You also seemingly don't realize its not labor that matters, but the type of labor that's important. That's why society typically values doctors and engineers over mediocre humanities majors like yourself.
>Innovation has never made society work less.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. It is an empirical fact people are working less hours yearly than they did any time in human history because of innovation. You're doing solipsism.
>Monetary profit isn't value.
It is. You've never ran a business or worked a day in your life to say something so stupid. There's no value to a company that makes a profit? How stupid can you get?
>Consumption/demand for profit isn't constant. The role of labour in the process changes as it becomes more capital intensive. Society doesn't need to work less to survive and productivity can't accomplish that.
Are you having a stroke? What does this have to with the point being made? Why would profits every be constant?
>The role of labour in the process changes as it becomes more capital intensive.
A literal meaningless statement.
>Society doesn't need to work less to survive
What do you mean, retard? What you need to service is nominal to your circumstances. There is no general rule to determine how much we all need to survive. Productivity higher productivity is literally why people have more time to survive, retard, because they able to produce more of the goods they need to survive without having as much labor time wasted on survival. Like, dude are you losing your mind? In are you in lalalala land? Your argument is basically an increase in supply, from higher yields of productivity, doesn't help society. You're absolutely retarded.

>>20046879
workers should take ownership of the means of production.

>it's another pseudomarxist trannies argue with phoneposting libertarians thread

>>20046879
>a means of production is for example, a factory or a machine. someone who works in a walmart or as a waiter does not work on the means of production. they only redistribute commodities.
A walmart or a restaurant produces surplus value. QED.

>>20050013
What the fuck am I reading

>>20050608
Spoken like a true college "Marxist" tranny. If there is any drop of AIDS blood left in you that actually cares about workers, after all your years of narcissistic bourgeois LARPing, tell it that the best thing you could do for workers is to stay the fuck away from them. You are doing unpaid casuistry for capital. Stop "helping." Take your tranny hands away from the iPhone keyboard, go to your parents' second home in Cape Cod for a while, and meditate on how you will never again try to explain to anyone what is good for working class consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo13VR9C2uI

>>20050670
>it has use value and exchange value, which makes it a commodity
I am pretty sure a commodity requires labor power in order to be transformed into a commodity.

>>20050618
>Consumption/demand for profit isn't constant. The role of labor in the process changes as it becomes more capital intensive. Society doesn't need to work less to survive and productivity can't accomplish that.

Your argument is that higher productivity isn't offering human beings a better life under capitalism. And that technology, which increased production per capita, per worker, had no role in that. Its an utterly retarded and ridiculous view. How stupid are you, Anon? Literally you're saying someone who can produce more per hour means they won't work less. Someone who spends 2 hours to make a chair, according to you, doesn't more time on his hands to do other things than someone who takes 10 hours. You're fucking dumb. You have to be the dumbest Marxist talked to on 4chan for a lonooooog time. You believe "society" has some magical total labor time for survival when the survival of an individual exists independently of that. There's literally no way for society to determine what labor time is necessary for survival because that's purely a question of genetics - it determines on the consumer's subjective desires.
>Consumption/demand for profit isn't constant.
This is the stupidest thing you said. I don't even know why you said it. Profit is merely the incentive for people to do labor. You don't even understand how profits work. Its literally just a feedback mechanism for a market. Literally just ake Econ101 and stop saying stupid shit like this. Do a couple of free online courses bro. This is embarrassing.

>>20050656
Walmart is part of the larger C-M-C chain. Capitalism isn't when someone makes a commodity and then directly sells it, that type of manufacturing has only ever existed in small scales. Even the fucking Greek and Roman oligarchs moved past that shit. Production in capitalism has to be taken within the broader context of the M-C-M' chain, which Walmart is a part of. Many capitalists get multiple biters at the whole slice of the pie until the consumer gets the commodity.

>20050708
a) The "truckers" were not majority working class, in fact working class orgs came out against them
b) obviously we're against people who oppose us and the working class politically.

>>20050748
All you can do is screech insults like a monkey caught in a cage. No analysis, no insight, no new information, just the screaming of a trapped animal facing a superior intellect.

>>20046915
Sorry tranny, but your specific strain of intellectual lazyness has has already sank communism 100 years ago, you're far too late to fuck things up further

>>20050708
Direct worker control is a form of syndicalism FYI
>It is an empirical fact people are working less hours yearly than they did any time in human history because of innovation
This is embarrassingly wrong. The dawn of humanity was when work was minimal, people hunted and scavenged for food like 3 hours a day. Physical records show humans shrunk over time and progressively became weaker. Capitalism also lengthened the work day until legislation started controlling that.
>Why would profits every be constant?
They wouldn't be, that's the point in a dynamic system.
>A literal meaningless statement.
Nope and there's a lot of social proof. As the productive process becomes more capital intensive society has become more feminized obviously for better and worse.
>Your argument is basically an increase in supply, from higher yields of productivity, doesn't help society
That's not what I said at all, capitalism increases supply but the process and consequences don't play by the rules you think.

>>20050776
>Your argument is that higher productivity isn't offering human beings a better life under capitalism
That's not what I said. I said productivity can't make society work less.

>>20050803
>Direct worker control is a form of syndicalism
No it isn't, syndicalism is when you use the trade union as a class weapon to combat the bourgeoisie. It's not a mode of economic organization.

>>20050803
>Direct worker control is a form of syndicalism FYI
We already have worker control - its called buying property rights.
>This is embarrassingly wrong. The dawn of humanity was when work was minimal,
Holy fuck you're dumb. Work wasn't minimal when people lived in fucking caves, you dumbass. Literally go be a fucking nomadic farmer or hunter, and say work was "minimal" compared to now where people can just go to a supermarket to get food. How fucking retarded are you, kid? Holy shit you're dumb. Work was "minimal" back then because people died before they reached your age, you idiot. Literal Marxists proving they're fucking idiots by glorifying the lifestyles of pre-historic humans. How fucking dumb. I wish someone slap the shit out of you. You need the reality that check.

>>20050803
>This is embarrassingly wrong. The dawn of humanity was when work was minimal, people hunted and scavenged for food like 3 hours a day

Not the anon youre arguing with but this line right here exposes you as a psued retard. Lmao

They did and continue to work. The economic organ directed toward larger purposes can do more magical things than create useless fancy kitchens and megayatch. Without economic centralization, the development of rocketry and nuclear weapons would have been an impossibility. Even back in the grug days, big grug with stick forcing the other grugs to do something, now that's what made humans travel, and made empires. Your brain is just too smoothed and spooked to consider any of this. You just read a braindead CENTRALIZATION BAD reductionist text book.

>>20046884
>>20050844

>>20050791
>Walmart is part of the larger C-M-C chain. Capitalism isn't when someone makes a commodity and then directly sells it
But that's not what I said, I said what distinguish the proletariat is that he works on a means of production that the capitalist acts as a rentier of. The proletariat works on a machine, or a plot of land, labor power used on that means of production produces commodities which has an exchange value. The whole point of this OP is that a cashier in a Mcdonalds or a walmart, or a janitor, aka anyone who does not engage on working on a means of production- whether it be on a factory or a piece of land, does not produce a commodity which has an exchange value. What commodity is produced by the cashier, or the stocker? Is a clean floor a commodity? I am looking at chapter 1 of Kapital right now and when Marx speaks of commodities he speaks of it as an 'external object whose qualities enable it to satisfy human wants'. Wheat, iron, paper. A commodity is transformed into such through labor time. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

I also don't understand why people are accusing me of being a 'conservative' or 'solipist' when I am just trying to go by exactly what is written in this book.

Lenin said you need to read Hegel to understand chapter 1...

>>20050791
Here's your analysis, insight, and information, tranny. Have fun in your bourgeois echo chamber justifying never engaging in actual praxis for another hundred fucking years.

>>20050776
>There's literally no way for society to determine what labor time is necessary for survival because that's purely a question of genetics - it determines on the consumer's subjective desires.
The collective market process determines the real and nominal wages you're faced with.

>Profit is merely the incentive for people to do labor. You don't even understand how profits work. Its literally just a feedback mechanism for a market. Literally just ake Econ101 and stop saying stupid shit like this. Do a couple of free online courses bro. This is embarrassing.
People get paid nominal wages for working, nominal profit is a rate of return and relative and a matter of firm survival (sorry but you can't just be satisfied with to little). Marx thought something real called "value" existed outside and regulated all that.

>>20050821
And you know all major firms are corporations owned collectively by investors. Ya, private property allows workers to rent capital instead of capital to rent workers but now you're getting into interesting structural questions on why institutions developed like they did. Also yes, primitive men worked less and physically mogged you... sorry the truth hurts

>>20050856
The whole point of capitalism is that labour isn't exploited in the concrete, but in the abstract. That's why capitalists hire proletarians to work a specific amount of time rather than to do a specific type of job. It doesn't matter where a proletarians falls in the production chain, their abstract labour can be exploited up until the point the end commodity is sold.
It doesn't matter whether a worker is mining the iron ore or cleaning the train that trnasports the iron ore to converted into ingots, their abstract labour is converted into surplus labour value because what they're actually *doing* doesn't matter, only that their time is required in the process of converting something into a commodity and facilitating the end goal of selling that commodity for more money than the original resource was worth.

>>20050825
>but this line right here exposes you as a psued retard.
No it doesn't. It proves something but not that. People work more today and are more neurotic in every way than 100,000 years ago. Check the skeletal records. You're TINY in comparison. That's not to say history was all a mistake but it requires a uniquely large understanding to set things straight and not be controlled by blind forces.

>>20050862
Quote the part of the book that refutes me. Because if its about the labour aristocracy, fucking cashiers at walmart are not what Lenin was referring to. He was talking about high up managers and union bureaucrats that are paid high wages as a bribe, walmart cashiers are not paid fucking bribery level wages.

>>20050897
>He was talking about high up managers and union bureaucrats that are paid high wages as a bribe,
No he was talking about workers paid in capitalist countries in general. Capitalist countries through imperialism can afford to pay it's domestic workers more.
>walmart cashiers are not paid fucking bribery level wages.
They are comparatively to children who work in mines in third world countries for a dollar a day.

>>20050906
The third worldist argument falls apart like tissue paper when you consider that workers in more developed capitalist countries have always earned comparatively more than their colonized counterparts, at the time Marx wrote Das Capital which specifically used England and its proletariat as an ideal state for class conflict England was the sole imperialist power. Nowhere did he argue the English working class are "labour aristocrats" despite this, nor did Lenin.

>>20050884
What surplus labor does the cleaner of the train produce? What commodity does this cleaner produce that is then comverted into exchange value?

>>20050996
They provide abstract labour that then can be converted into surplus labour value.
To give a clearer picture, lets say that its a company that makes iron ingots from iron ore that it mines, and that hires cleaners in house, so they're not contracting cleaning out. Here, the cleaner is an overhead for the company, an overhead that is absolutely required, since without cleaners the workplace would get dirty and decay, disrupting the M-C-M' chain the capitalist wants to complete. Since the cleaner;'s labour is an overhead but nonetheless crucial to the operation, once the ingots are all sold and the company has made money, the surplus value contributed to the company by the cleaner can be appropriated i.e taken and then a wage paid to them.
You cannot just count workers who directly make things as proletarians, because that makes no sense and isn't considering the entire process.

>>20046879
Correct. Baristas and waiters aren't part of the proletariat per Marx's writings.
Skilled laborers are the proletariat, but modern times have created a charity class beneath the proles that benefit more from even capitalist systems than they contribute with extremely menial labor.

>>20051187
>Baristas and waiters aren't part of the proletariat per Marx's writings.
As per where. Where does it say this?

>>20051187
Wrong.
>>20051037

>>20046943
>i read the fucken link and this isn't 'economic planning' in the meaning most commonly attributed to the term.
>at the point in which the proletariat seizes power, the productive forces of capitalism has reached it's limit. there are no 'new markets to tap into'. once there is no more room for capital to expand it destroys itself. that is why the proletariat seizes production, to keep capital from destroying itself.
This is some contorted mental gymnastics. He says directly and explicitly from the link that he wants to
>centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state
That is by definition economic planing--i.e the state plans the economy. It's weird how Marxists always do this, always feel the need to go into some insane obfuscation even when a quote by Marx very clearly and directly says what it means.

>>20047112
>an RT documentary
Rofl

>>20050013
The rare based retard take. You don't see this that often anymore

>>20050759
value is the labour time necessary to make the product, so yes, it needs labour in that sense
>>20050996
>What surplus labor does the cleaner of the train produce? What commodity does this cleaner produce that is then comverted into exchange value?
the transport service. Vol. 2:
>[T]he use-value of things is realized only in their consumption, and their consumption may make a change of location necessary, and thus also the additional production process of the transport industry. The productive capital invested in this industry thus adds value to the products transported, partly through the value carried over from the means of transport, partly through the value added by the work of transport.
but even if he didn't take part in producing value, e.g. if he worked as a cleaner in a store instead, then he would still provide surplus labour, i.e. work let's say 2 hours "for free". he just wouldn't create surplus value. Vol. 2:
>The two hours’ surplus labour that he performs no more produce value than do his eight hours of necessary labour, although it is by means of the latter that a part of the social product is transferred to him. In the first place, both before and after, from the social point of view a person’s labour-power is used up for ten hours in this mere circulation function. It is not available for anything else, including productive labour. Secondly, however, society does not count these two hours of surplus labour, although they are spent by the individual who performs them. Society does not appropriate by this means any additional product or value. But the costs of circulation that he represents are reduced by a fifth, from ten hours to eight. Society pays no equivalent for a fifth of this active circulation time whose agent he is. If it is the capitalist who employs these agents, then the circulation costs of his capital, which form a deduction from his receipts, are reduced by the non-payment of the two hours.

>>20051328
>>centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state
>That is by definition economic planing--i.e the state plans the economy.
no, that doesn't entail state planning the economy. the state can take ownership of businesses and let them continue to function on a capitalist basis, i.e. to hire wage labour and produce commodities and therefore surplus value.

>>20049918
I mean what's so complicated that we have to explain them this for the 10th time.
Only explanation is that they are in denial.

I don't see Marx's analysis of capitalism as being so mind-blowing that one must then fall into worship of the man.

>>20052955
then don't

>>20051328
Modern Marxist China owns a large % of their businesses because of their economic investments. Now if China increased those investments to own even more of the economy would it collapse? I don't see why it would.

>>20050996
>What surplus labor does the cleaner of the train produce?
That's faux frais of production.

>>20047559
>have to own OS, AWS, and ISP just to write haha le funny code
eat shit ni/g/ger
you goofballs are not proles, you're a secondary leisure class

>>20053618
it's not all faux frais. cleaning the trains is in its basic extent as much an integral part of the production process in the transport industry as driving them. it only becomes partly faux frais when more cleaning is done that is necessary for smooth functioning of the transport process, for example because of state safety regulations requiring it or something.

>>20052955
mainstream economics is a giant sleight of hand to cope with him being right about the origin of commodity prices

>>20053936
That's not how i understood faux frais, as if i remember (Das Kapital volume 2 i think) Marx put storage into faux frais. Storage for avoiding a particular product to deteriorate. It's not production, per se, but it's necessary to production, thus faux frais. If i'm not mistaken, a seller in a company is also classified as faux frais.