/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11457286]

>Start reading capital a couple of weeks ago
>Pretty dense shit from the outset even Marx in the preface warns about how thick his explanations in the first part can be to someone who is not used to this kind of stuff.
>Get to Chapter Three: Money, Or the Circulation of Commodities
>Want to fucking hang myself
>Get through it barely understanding anything
>Arrive to Chapter Four: The General Formula for Capital
>Go through it and suddenly I have an epiphany and start to understand Chapter III completly
>C-M-C, M-C-M, M-C-M', where M' = M + D M formula for the Surplus Value
>Feel like my brain is about to nut

So is this the power of dialectics??

[Anonymous No.11457295]

lmao why does everyone think this is a foundational text? Even for marxists it's a text specifically for special interest autistic nerds in academia.

[Anonymous No.11457317]

>>11457295
>Even for marxists it's a text specifically for special interest autistic nerds in academia

What are you talking about? Almost anyone I know who has any sort of knowledge in politics, philosophy or economics knows its something that you gotta read if you actually don't want to sound like an ass like Jordan Peterson. How can anyone make any sort of critique/defence against/of capitalism or capitalist society without reading Capital is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.11457365]

Also, pretty funny how the fucking guy takes so much time in his foot notes to fuvking BURN everyone from Ricardo to Proudhon

[Anonymous No.11457493]

Why would you read that useless shit instead of a physics textbook? Do you want to participate in a political movement? Why? Do you stand a chance of being elected to a government office of any importance? How do you know?

If you want to read important stuff just because people think it's important, then surely Einstein is ten times more relevant than Marx.

[Anonymous No.11457505]

>>11457493

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.11457509]

>>11457493
>Marxism
>having anything to do with capitalist politics
The only time a Marxist would go near a career politician is to lynch them.

Also, why are you on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.11457512]

>>11457317
>any sort of knowledge in politics, philosophy or economics

What have those people actually produced that is good and helpful? The only important philosophers are the stoics, all the rest is trash, including Marx.

Marxism is either:

1 - the most oppressive regime ever invented by man, responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people;
or 2 - the ideology dictators who invent the most oppressive regimes ever invented by man, responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people, like to defend in their public speeches, as well as that of Western intellectuals who like to praise those same dictators until the point when the obvious facts start coming to light and it becomes too ugly to defend them in public.

In both cases, it's trash. Why should someone care about it unless he was a historian?

[Anonymous No.11457518]

>>11457509
Because I love Catullus, Guido Cavalcanti and Quevedo.

Why are you not on /his/?

[Anonymous No.11457531]

>>11457509
>The only time a Marxist would go near a career politician is to lynch them.
really because Marxists and Neolibs seem to rub shoulders pretty comfortably in the Ivies

[Anonymous No.11457538]

>>11457512
>What have those people actually produced that is good and helpful?

Ok so you are a STEMfag good to know, why don't you go to your board instead of starting shit up cause you feel frustrated somehow?

>Why should someone care about it unless he was a historian?

I am a historian u fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.11457543]

>>11457512
>Marxism is either:
>1 - the most oppressive regime ever invented by man, responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people;
>or 2 - the ideology dictators who invent the most oppressive regimes ever invented by man, responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people, like to defend in their public speeches, as well as that of Western intellectuals who like to praise those same dictators until the point when the obvious facts start coming to light and it becomes too ugly to defend them in public.

Why are STEMfags such brainlets?

[Anonymous No.11457548]

>>11457512
>The only important philosophers are the stoics
>read a physics textbook
God-tier credulity you've got there

[Anonymous No.11457549]

>>11457538
>What have those people actually produced that is good and helpful?
>Ok so you are a STEMfag good to know,
just lmao at this exchange

[Anonymous No.11457551]

>>11457317
Absolutely not necessarily at all to comprehend marxism. Actual essential works re: "German Ideology", "Manifesto", collections of articles after Manifesto as well as Engels' "Condition of the Working Class in England", "Socialism" and "Origin of Family etc."

"Capital" remains a special interest piece mainly for dedicated Marx scholars and certain economists, wholly unnecessary for the casual reader or anyone primarily interested in Marxist philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11457555]

>>11457549
If I actually have to explain to you what physics, politics and economics has done to the advancement of society then you are probably a STEMfag

[Anonymous No.11457557]

>>11457551
>Absolutely not necessarily at all to comprehend marxism

When did I say that it was necessary to understand marxism, my man? All I said was:

>Almost anyone I know who has any sort of knowledge in politics, philosophy or economics knows its something that you gotta read if you actually don't want to sound like an ass.

>How can anyone make any sort of critique/defence against/of capitalism or capitalist society without reading Capital is beyond me.

Lear how to read breh

[Anonymous No.11457563]

>>11457555
Sorry, meant philosophy, politics and economics

[Anonymous No.11457586]

>>11457538
No, I am a poetry translator.

Why don't you go to /his/?

I am tired of political threads destroying this place. Marx is not literature and never will be. Go back to your own board and stay there.

>>11457538
Why are you an idiot?

>>11457543
>I am a historian u fucking faggot

Then go to /his/.

[Anonymous No.11457594]

>>11457518
Eyyy my nigga Catullus is great. Saying guals drink piss and such.

Because /his/ is a mediocre/predictable place for history at best, and at worst full of revisionists, Nazis, and the people who believe them. There’s no actual research done on the board, and what’s the point? Anything you say will be gone within the day. In a world where words claim truth but hold no weight/accountability, lies are equally proliferated.

Plus I’m a history minor so I get 5 hours of it a week from actual academics anyway.

[Anonymous No.11457605]

>>11457512
jesus christ imagine being this retard

[Anonymous No.11457629]

>>11457594
>Because /his/ is a mediocre/predictable place for history at best

Go there and improve it, then.

>Eyyy my nigga Catullus is great. Saying guals drink piss and such.

This goes to show you know nothing at all about poetry, and when I say nothing I do mean 'nothing': you know nothing at all about poetry.

Don't get me wrong. I do not really wish to discourage people from reading Marx, and have read him myself, but it's not literature. Each thing has its own place and time, and this is not the place for Marx, so please go to /his/.

>>11457605
Now imagine resorting to memes in order to 'refute' it.

[Anonymous No.11457635]

>>11457629
I don't need to refute something that's blatantly wrong. It's like arguing with flat-earthers.

[Anonymous No.11457649]

>>11457635
Sure thing.

[Anonymous No.11457652]

>>11457629
>Go there and improve it, then.
Lmao no. Thats like pouring drinking water into a sewer.

Also Im a latin student you sperg I was agreeing with you over Catullus. Carmen 39.

You silly

[Anonymous No.11457654]

>>11457649
Read even just the wikipedia page on marxism and you will realize how much of an idiot you sound.

[Anonymous No.11457661]

>>11457586
>Then go to /his/.

I am talking about a book and the methodology the author uses for the development of his own argument if you are really a translator and cannot understand that this is a topic of discussion for this board then you should get your fucking money back for your degree dipshit.

[Anonymous No.11457687]

>>11457629
What a fucking moron, I don't even care that I'm samefagging. You should really fucking go to a corner and think, you fucking dingus.

[Anonymous No.11457720]

>>11457652
>>11457654
>>11457661
>>11457687
Someone is quite mad that their favorite (non-literary) author isn't nearly as respected as he used to be. What a shame.

Oh, and I have no degree in literature either. My degree is in Law, which is a relevant field that makes me richer than you.

[Anonymous No.11457730]

>>11457720
>My degree is in Law, which is a relevant field that makes me richer than you.

>Implying that I went into history to get money

>Implying I didn't take up the field which most fulfilled me

>Implying I went to Law School to please Mommy and Daddy so I can get a good income and finally loose my virginity

How does it feel to be a fucking trashbag of a human being?

[Anonymous No.11457736]

>>11457720
>Someone is quite mad that their favorite (non-literary) author isn't nearly as respected as he used to be

>Thinks only fiction is literature

>Has a degree in Law

Yeah it checks out

[Anonymous No.11457738]

After reading Marx, read Fast Food Nation and see a modern version of exploration of workers.

[Anonymous No.11457740]

>>11457720
"law" isnt an undergrad degree u stupid fuck most lawyers have history or english as their bachelors if ur going to larp as not neet trash at least try to make it believable

[Anonymous No.11457741]

>>11457738
>read Fast Food Nation and see a modern version of exploration of workers.

I worked in Fast food breh, I lived that shit.

[Anonymous No.11457747]

>>11457720
>relevant field that makes me richer than you
>muh-muh money!! sh-shut up you gommie!!

[Anonymous No.11457780]

>>11457730
>>11457736
what the fuck is this spacing?

[Anonymous No.11457808]

>>11457586
>Marx is not literature and never will be.

Fortunately you don't decide what is and what is not literature. Even the most irreverent anti-Marxists don't make childish arguments like that. I can only assume you've never read a word of Marx. He was a brilliant prose writer. Even in Capital, which is by in large his most didactic and convoluted work he makes innumerable references to the Bible, Shakespeare and so much more.

[Anonymous No.11457813]

>>11457509
Nothing is more materialist than Marxism. Everything becomes defined by access and control of finite physical resources. All conceptual spheres become oriented on this axis. It's perverse. Not even in consumerism is art so reduced as it is in Marxism, where it becomes simply one more tool by which to seize and control capital.

[Anonymous No.11457826]

>>11457509
Yeah, its not like the title of the fucking book is Capital: A critique of political economy or anything ...

[Anonymous No.11457856]

>>11457512
Or: Marxism gave the working class movement an intellectual edifice. It's not hard so see how people who live in poverty can become attached to a philosophy of their liberation - regardless of what the historical consequences were.

The most oppressive regimes? There is no deny the crime of 20th century communism, but THE MOST OPPRESSIVE? What about the British Empire? Or the French Empire (and its modern neo-colonialism)? Or even the American Empire which has propped-up the most totalitarian regimes - from Pinochet's Chile to Suharto's Indonesia, for the sake of economic gain?

The difference between communism and fascism is: the fascists promised to do bad things, took power, and did made things. The communists promised to do good things, took power, and ended up doing bad things. It's a tragedy, not a crime.

[Anonymous No.11457864]

>>11457856
Good post anon

[Anonymous No.11457867]

>>11457813
Hmm...
>Things being defined by access and control of finite resources
>Everything is dominated by capital
>All that matters is accruing and possessing capital
... kind of like 'capital-ism'?

[Anonymous No.11457884]

Is David Harvey’s Theory if Labor Value explanation full of shit ir is he legit? I heard the guy has problems grasping the complexity of it all.

[Anonymous No.11457903]

>>11457856
>The communists promised to do good things, took power, and ended up doing bad things. It's a tragedy, not a crime.

They did do a lot of good though, a lot of bad as well for sure. I would say that one has to contextualize the chaotic historical circumstances from which most of these regimes actually emerged and the isolation they faced in the early years from most of the world as reasons to understand why happened such or such way.

[Anonymous No.11457953]

Could anyone summarize or provide a good source to understand the Marx - Böhm-Bawerk - Bukahrin beef?

[Anonymous No.11458030]

>>11457286
The problem is that the labor theory of value views all trade as a zero sum game - which is obviously not the case, or we would be just as wealthy today as we we were in the year 1000 AD.
That excess wealth has to have come from somewhere.

[Anonymous No.11458076]

>>11458030
That's only true of exchange value. You're neglecting use-value.

[Anonymous No.11458157]

All the brainwashed Marxists in here, JFC

[Anonymous No.11458177]

>>11458030
Because labor power is a commodity that produces more value than its own value, jesus christ you'd know this if you just read Vol 1.

[Anonymous No.11458464]

'Marxists' are the most easily goaded pissbabies on the internet.
Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.11458636]

>>11458464
Affirmation of the consequent. AKA 'prove me wrong by proving that I'm right'

[Anonymous No.11458701]

I honestly thought Capital was pretty easy to read particularly after the commodities section (beginning with The Working Day I think). 100x easier to read than Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.11458718]

You might want to check out Value: The Representation of Labour in Capitalism by Diane Elson, it’s a collection of essays on value some of which relate Marx’s writings to Hegel. Definitely helps if you’re trying to understand the dialectics in Capital and just the concept of value better

[Anonymous No.11458724]

>>11457740
it is in pretty much every country outside of burgerland

[Anonymous No.11458794]

>>11457741
still read about it

[Anonymous No.11458865]

>>11457856
>The communists promised to do good things, took power, and ended up doing bad things.
>The communists promised to do good things
>The communists promised good things
>the things the communists promised to do where good things
Anyone not a proletariat is a nonhuman, worthless, the essence of all evil.

[Anonymous No.11458870]

>>11457295
t. never taken economics or sociology

[Anonymous No.11458871]

>>11458636
that's
uh
that's not really what affirming the consequent is about
marxist's, incidentally, are also logically illiterate
which is qed at this point

[Anonymous No.11458878]

>>11457286
Good luck OP, remember to go back and re-read those chapters now. This is not a race so you want to say "I understand Capital" rather than "I have read Capital".
Also remember that this text was written for the working class back in the day and they understood it, so think of that what you will.

[Anonymous No.11458882]

>>11458870
economics major here
marx was a footnote in one of our primary texts

[Anonymous No.11458889]

>>11458870
Marx is a non-entity in applied economics

[Anonymous No.11458914]

>>11458889
"applied economics" is stock speculation and business accounting, bourgeois macro-economics is an idealistic farce. There is literally no evidence for bourgeois theories of macro-economics, while modern data and statistical analysis actually prove Marx's arguments in Capital.

[Anonymous No.11458919]

>>11458914
evidence is the faggiest thing there is

[Anonymous No.11458920]

>>11458914
>while modern data and statistical analysis actually prove Marx's arguments in Capital.
which arguments are proven? by what data, and what analysis?

[Anonymous No.11458943]

>>11458914
>>11458920
what, nothing?

[Anonymous No.11458962]

>>11457826
>political economy
>politics
no

[Anonymous No.11459184]

>>11457856
>Marxism gave the working false hope in an utopian never reachable land.
Fixed for you

>the most oppressive?

Well yeah it may not have had the scale of other empire but those other empires didn't have the constant oppression of every civilians or the terrible purge of the more well-off/people who were a danger for the leader. What you're saying is that you'll be better off under commie than under the fucking french or british which is completly bullshit.

>america is more oppresive than commie because they fucked stuff up outsode of their countries
Back to resetera you piece of shit.

>communists promised to do good things

Yeah just like the fascists you mong. You think Hitler was elected by promising that he was going to fuck up the german economy?

>bu-but they promised to be rascists
Oh yeah because promising to fuck up the "elite" is so much better when your definition of elite is "people who have it better than me"

On top of that both fascists and commie were too stupid to run a country which ended in million more dead people. What amazing regimes?

[Anonymous No.11459185]

>>11458865
And where did Marx say that? By your logic Marx didn't support the peasants in the struggle against the landlords, or the national bourgeoisie in their struggle against imperialism, or even the actual bourgeoisie in their struggle to overthrow feudalism.

[Anonymous No.11459190]

>>11458914
>>11458920
>>11458943
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypJ_tcnfaWA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-arn--Gtu-E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBdKZddeOk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85tYfXYmzJY
These videos have many citations and references to follow. The LTV (and many other following theories, and Marx's predictions) is proven by modern statistics.

[Anonymous No.11459200]

>>11459184
Marxism is different from communism you blistering retard

[Anonymous No.11459202]

>>11457493
>Why would you read that useless shit instead of a physics textbook?
thanks for revealing that you're a 120iq brainlet

[Anonymous No.11459206]

>>11457512
>The only important philosophers are the stoics,
>muh 100 billion

[Anonymous No.11459213]

>>11457720
>My degree is in Law, which is a relevant field that makes me richer than you.
so this is the power of stoic philosophy...

[Anonymous No.11459217]

>>11459200
Maybe read the post I was responding too and hang yourself, yeah?

[Anonymous No.11459224]

>>11459217
marxism is an analytical method you cocksucker

[Anonymous No.11459228]

>>11459224
So?

[Anonymous No.11459231]

>>11459184
>constant oppression of every civilian or terrible purges of more well-off people

Look at the the composition of the CPSU from 1918-1936. The purges didn't target ordinary civilians, although many of ordinary people inevitably were purged, they targeted party officials, military officers, members of the old regime, trade union leaders and industrialists. The worst place to be in the USSR in the 1930s was at the top of Soviet society, because then you were a target.

Unless you were somehow useful to the colonialists, you were disposable to them. Whether through slave labour, political repression, or out-right murder - you were disposable and suffered for it.

>just like the fascists

No, the fascists promised to have a final solution to the 'Jewish question', to deal with the socialists and trade unionists, to repress free-speech and freedom of expression.

You don't know my definition of the 'elite' so I'd thank you not to make-up one for me.

>too stupid to run the economy

You're just wrong on both accounts. Fascist authoritarianism was brutally efficient. Communism in the USSR achieved in 30 years what took capitalist Britain and France 300 years - full industrialisation, from being a backward agrarian nation to an international superpower. There were three main problems in the Soviet economy; over-reliance of heavy industry, an inability to distribute goods according to need and trends, and the market reforms stemming from 65' which created a conflict of interest between suppliers, manufactures and distributors.

[Anonymous No.11459261]

>>11457493
Exactly, read Einstein. The socialist.

[Anonymous No.11459266]

>>11459231
>the purges didn't target ordinary civilians although many of ordinary peoples inevotably were purger

Eh?

>They targeted part official
Yeah so Communists created such a terribly untrustworthy official hierarchy they felt the need to kill people en masse in it. That's good, that's good.

>unless you were somehow useful to the colonialists you were disposable to them
Pot calling the keetle back perhaps. Plus it's not like everyone was in this category.

>the fascists promised to have a final solution

Well no, not all fascists. Concerning the final solution it actually came pretty late. Of course nazis promised to fuck up the jews which was stupid but that's not the only thing they promised. They gave a somewhat stable society to Germany for a few years for exemple, even if it was at the cost of preparing for a useless war.

>Fascist authoritarianism was brutally efficient

Yeah no. Every fascist country was an econimic failure. Same shit for the communists how the hell do you suffer an economic collapse when you're fucking russia?
>Industrialisation
Would have happened under the Tsar too
And what the fuck do you mean by 300 years for Britain? Russoa managed to do this so fast because they had access to technologies Britain took 300 years to discover, jesus christ.

[Anonymous No.11459281]

Hey leftypol what did 20th century academics conclude were the necessary and sufficient measures to ensure the practical, materially grounded feasibility of everyone holding the entire government in their heads to unify the purposes of 8 billion people of varying intellect and experience?

[Anonymous No.11459301]

>>11458030
>That excess wealth has to have come from somewhere.

It comes from the circulation of money through comodities M-C-M', where M' = M + D M formula for the Surplus Value which creates surplus ad infinitum. Did you read the book?

[Anonymous No.11459312]

>>11458794
Ok, I'll trust you comrade :)

>>11458865
>Anyone not a proletariat is a nonhuman, worthless, the essence of all evil.
You should stop watching Peterson's videos and actually read anything from Marx, he hated moralism to justify is arguments as is shown thorughout Capital and dind't paint the bourgeoisie as a monolithic group.
>>11458882
>>11458889
t. Burger education
>>11458962
Yes

Could we fucking discuss the book and its contents instead of letting the fucking pseuds derail the thread? I know you guys are rock hard from watching Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan and all that bullshit but if you haven't read Capital please fuck off and go watch some OWNED FEMINIST compilation videos, please.

[Anonymous No.11459318]

>>11459266
>Britain discovered how to send manned capsules into space, build space stations and nuclear reactors.

[Anonymous No.11459346]

>>11457867
>capitalism
>gain your own capital
>spend capital as you please on whatever pleases your soul or ideology

>communism
>gain capital
>goes straight to state for good of the common people
>entirely at the mercy of the state as to what the capital should be spent on, could be free healthcare, could be gulags to put your family in next month
>rinse and repeat until you die having no say in the fruit of your labors
huh

[Anonymous No.11459348]

>>11458718
Gracias macho

[Anonymous No.11459352]

>>11459346
>>capitalism
>>gain your own capital

Read Capital faggot

[Anonymous No.11459360]

>>11459318
America did you faggot

>>11459352
How am I currently not gaining my own capital? I'm free to spend it however I please.

[Anonymous No.11459364]

>>11459352
See this is what I hate about marxists, they refuse to even acknowledge any words that have a marxist definition. I'm happy to call money capital because it's a nice crystallisation of power that I get access to even for doing the shittiest of labors.
At least I was fair enough to use each system's own definition of capital.

[Anonymous No.11459370]

>>11459360
>America did you faggot
I'm sorry to tell you that Soviets got people and satelites into space way before the Americans, read a book

>>11459360
>How am I currently not gaining my own capital? I'm free to spend it however I please.
You dont gain your own capital, the circulation of money through commodities does. In order to get massive amounts of capital you need to obtain it from the surplus value obtained from labour which means exploitation of yourself or other workers. Seriously, read Capital instead of trying to OWN me or whatever.

>>11459364
See this is what I hate about marxists, they refuse to even acknowledge any words that have a marxist definition. I'm happy to call money capital because it's a nice crystallisation of power that I get access to even for doing the shittiest of labors.

That is not what capital is, capital is the excess surplus value that you accumulate in order to get more money, M-C-M seriously read the fucking book you moron.

[Anonymous No.11459376]

>>11459261
lmao, this

[Anonymous No.11459379]

>>11457493
well, einstein was a socialist himself

[Anonymous No.11459381]

>>11459364
>See this is what I hate about marxists, they refuse to even acknowledge any words that have a marxist definition. I'm happy to call money capital because it's a nice crystallisation of power that I get access to even for doing the shittiest of labors.

>See this is what I hate about marxists they refuse to even acknowledge any words that have what I think in my head after watching some reactionaries in youtube tell me what the marxist definition is instead of finding out myself.

[Anonymous No.11459383]

>>11459370
>>11459381
Really makes you do the dink when most people use the modern definition relevant in a capitalist system instead of the marxist definition huh?

[Anonymous No.11459388]

>>11459383
The point is money is perception management. It isn't actually anything but a persuasive case.

[Anonymous No.11459393]

>>11459383
Why are you such a fucking moron? This has nothing to do with the argument man, we are talking about the book Capital and you try to be a smartass by showing what google thinks capital menas? Are you really this dense?

[Anonymous No.11459397]

>>11459370
>Soviets got people and satelites into space before Americans

That's cool but nothing came out of it and they ended up btfo by the evil capitalists who are still well off to this day while soviets are collapsed.

Soviets might as well never existed for that no one remember the failed prototype of planes or phones

>You don't gain your own capital

But I do???
>In order to get massive amounts of capital
Well I'm not talking about being rich just having moneys???

>which means exploitation of yourself and other workers

So I work and make other work and I get capital. How is this capital not mine?

[Anonymous No.11459406]

>>11459397
>hat's cool but nothing came out of it and they ended up btfo by the evil capitalists who are still well off to this day while soviets are collapsed.
>Soviets might as well never existed for that no one remember the failed prototype of planes or phones

You do know that the only way to get people into space as of today is through Soyuz capsules, right?

>So I work and make other work and I get capital. How is this capital not mine?

Because you don't generate it, it comes from the labour of your workers.

[Anonymous No.11459415]

>>11459383
i know you think of yourself as a hero of your own little "jordan peterson DEMOLISHES a postmodernist lesbian" video but you're really not going to "own" any marxists like this. you need to engage with something in order to criticize it otherwise you're just being a clown. right now it's like if your argument against nietzsche was that you didn't like the comic book "superman".

[Anonymous No.11459422]

>>11457856
>The communists promised to do good things, took power, and ended up doing bad things.
The fact they lied makes it even worse.

[Anonymous No.11459428]

>>11459422
Ok breh

[Anonymous No.11459432]

>>11457286
You sound like an easily influenced brainlet. Come check out /leftypol/ if you have the time.

[Anonymous No.11459438]

>>11459432
>You sound like an easily influenced brainlet. Come check out /leftypol/ if you have the time.

Nice argument, I don't want to go to /leftypol/ to LARP as a revolutionary the same way that if I was a nazi I wouldn't go to /pol/ to LARP as a EUROPEAN WARRIOR.

[Anonymous No.11459448]

>>11459438
LARP wherever you want, m8.

[Anonymous No.11459453]

>>11459448
I dont like LARPing though, maybe if capitalism collapses I can LARP as a dead corpse

[Anonymous No.11459458]

ITT. Marxist libtards TROLLED by simple economics, epic style

[Anonymous No.11459468]

>>11459406
>you don't generate it

That's stupid. First of all I talked about myself a worker. So yeah I generate my capital. Secondly it's not lile the big boss are spending their days jacking off and do nothing to increaze the value of workers' labor.

[Anonymous No.11459470]

>>11459458
Yes, that is why there was no economic development in the USSR or in China

[Anonymous No.11459481]

>>11459468
>First of all I talked about myself a worker. So yeah I generate my capital. Secondly it's not lile the big boss are spending their days jacking off and do nothing to increaze the value of workers' labor.

You generate profit by extracting the surplus value of your own work and from your employess, the fact that you manage how to better extract value from your own workers doesn't mean you generate or own it, it is them ultimately from the product of their own labour who generate surplus value.

[Anonymous No.11459485]

>>11459458
This is a very comboluted way of saying competion is good and that there is no competions in socialism which is a pile of shit which someone woulf actually expouse if they didn't know anything about soviet economic history. Soviet economy was higly compartamentilzed and there was a lot of competition between different departments which acted as "entrepeneurs who bid for factors of production on the market". But hey, you sure showed me with that 9GaG meme, bro!

[Anonymous No.11459575]

>>11459481
This is so retarded I don't know how to answer.

>the fact that you manage how to better extract values from your own worker doesn't mean you own it.

Of fucking course it means I own it. Especialmy today where goods are produced and ferried all over the world. You need someone to invest capitals for transportation, machines, people ready to work, energy, all kind of shit.

Workers just don't sit there, build something and poof, gain money. They need to buy the means to produce first then they need to sell it. Hell they also need to know how to produce goods and what kind of good to produce.

They're not the only one involved.

[Anonymous No.11459586]

>>11457286
I'll let you in on a little secret, OP: the reason it's hard to understand is because there simply is nothing to understand. It's all bullshit. The highest calibre bullshit you can find. It makes so little sense that any psychopath with a thirst for power can hijack the communist movement and start purging millions of people for 'the good of the people'. If there was an exact opposite of reality that could be put into words, Capital is as close as it comes.

[Anonymous No.11459596]

>>11457286
I have an economics degree and studied Marxism in college

They over complicate it to appeal to pompous intellectuals. It’s literally a propaganda technique

>haha you’re not intellectual enough to understand
>look at what a complex system this is!

There’s nothing complicated about Marxism. It’s very straight forward in practice

[Anonymous No.11459601]

>>11457493
>Why would you read that useless shit instead of a physics textbook?
This is an immortal science textbook.
>Do you want to participate in a political movement?
I want to participate in the real movement because it's in my material self-interest as a prole aspiring for greater economic and social freedom.
> Do you stand a chance of being elected to a government office of any importance?
>elections
>parliamentary democracy
Lmao
The only government office of any importance is the dictatorship of the proletariat and it's inherently revolutionary
>How do you know?
Dialectics.

[Anonymous No.11459621]

>>11457813
Marxism is completely materialist to the core and utterly opposed to any notion that there is anything greater than or beyond the natural world. I agree. But these are good things, that's the truth.

And that's precisely why Marxism is great for art. Because Marxists to liberate society from capital, where art could freely be made for the art rather than for the market where now that is an extreme luxury. If you care at all about art it should be clear why a market economy is retarded.

[Anonymous No.11459676]

>>11459575
>Of fucking course it means I own it. Especialmy today where goods are produced and ferried all over the world. You need someone to invest capitals for transportation, machines, people ready to work, energy, all kind of shit.

Those goods are produced and ferried around by workers all over the world, you are proving my argument. The fact is that at the core of the value of the commodity lies the socially necessary labour time. You would know this if you just read the first chapter of capital.

>Workers just don't sit there, build something and poof, gain money. They need to buy the means to produce first then they need to sell it. Hell they also need to know how to produce goods and what kind of good to produce.

Workers don't own the means of production in a capitalist society, capitalist do. It is in fact this unbalanced relationship which give capitalist power absolute power in the production of commodities which they use to strengthen their hold over the worker and try to improvish their conditions because as we said the value of the commodity is determined by the necessary labour time which means that to obtain more surplus value from your workers you need to either fire them and overwork the rest or lower their wages while keeping pace with production speed. AGAIN clearly explained in Capital.

>>11459596

>I have an economics degree and studied Marxism in college
>They over complicate it to appeal to pompous intellectuals. It’s literally a propaganda technique
>>haha you’re not intellectual enough to understand
>>look at what a complex system this is!

I would go back to your college and ask for my money back because that is probably the shittiest line of argumentation I've read in my life. You could actually start an argument like the other guy that I'm arguing with because that at least makes sort of sense and is one of the most attacked theories of Capital; i.e workers are not the only source of value. I think they are fundamentally but I can understand people like this guy arguing that it is not, but to call myself an economist and use these fucking tautologies in order to prove my point would make me want to reconsider and switch careers.

[Anonymous No.11459688]

>>11457512
>/lit/ hated him because he spoke the truth

[Anonymous No.11459691]

>>11458464
>What are stormfags
>What are weaboos
>Fucking furfags

[Anonymous No.11459757]

>>11459676
But workers need instrjctions and a mean to transport these goods. Without that their works is absolutly worthless. The guy who give them instructions and find them something to transport is also doing somrthing worthwhile.

>workers don't own the means of production

Partially incorrect. I'm a computer scientist, I already have my means of production. But I willingly submit to evil capitalists because they tell me what to do, find someone who is going to be interested in my product, pay for formations and give me some of that sweet, sweet capital.

They don't pay me enought? Then I'll just wore myself out to another capitalist scum who's ready to pay me more.

This is some kind of da joooo tier theory.

[Anonymous No.11459772]

>>11459757
>willingly submit to evil capitalists because they tell me what to do, find someone who is going to be interested in my product, pay for formations and give me some of that sweet, sweet capital.
Marketing and advertisers are your fellow proletariats. Hell in some cases your executives are too.

[Anonymous No.11459774]

>>11459575
It's almost as if you've confused all of the relevant terms and have no idea how pre capitalist labour was organised.

[Anonymous No.11459778]

>>11459757
>Partially incorrect. I'm a computer scientist, I already have my means of production. But I willingly submit to evil capitalists because they tell me what to do, find someone who is going to be interested in my product, pay for formations and give me some of that sweet, sweet capital.
>They don't pay me enought? Then I'll just wore myself out to another capitalist scum who's ready to pay me more.

You don't own the means of production if you actually have to sell your labour as a commodity where you don't perceive any of the surplus embbeded in it. You also don't sumbit willingly since you have to work for someone in order not to starve unless you already have a large sum of capital with which to begin an entreprise which would in turn exploit more workers. You are not free, you are a slave to the conditions created by the capitalist class, sorry mang.

>This is some kind of da joooo tier theory.

What anti-semites and nazis did was take the most superficial elements of socialist critique of capitalism and adscribe its evils to a particular group of people instead of the circulation of money and commodities like Marx said. It is quite interesting a quote from Zizek: "The problem with Hitler is that he didnt go far enough" meaning that Hitler and the nazis fetishized the figure of the "Jew" in order for people not to see the real reason for capitalist dynamics.

[Anonymous No.11459786]

>>11457856

You criticize him for calling 20th century communism the most oppressive, but seem to imply Pinochet's Chile was one of the most totalitarian regimes...

[Anonymous No.11459796]

>>11459757
The reproduction of labour is a part of the conditions of production. Think about how you are alienated from your labour power through the wage relation/housing market.
This is classic capitalist thinking, an unwillingness or an inability to think systemically about labour, especially beyond one's own circumstances.

[Anonymous No.11459829]

>>11459786
He was literally throwing people out of choppers, I dont know what to tell you. In any case it is not a competition, both communist and capitalist regimes have done horrible things in order to ensure the survival of their own systems. They can both be criticised in these grounds as well as any ideology which ever held any sort of power. That is why arguing around body counts is so fucking useless and only serves to begin moralistic debates which lead nowhere, which is a typical bourgeouise vice.

[Anonymous No.11459843]

>>11459485
Those 3 lines in the pic weren't "very convoluted" at all, they were straight forward.

[Anonymous No.11459857]

>>11459843
Ok, guess it sounds way more convoluted to a non-native speaker

[Anonymous No.11459897]

>>11459843
It's just wrong, competition very much existed in socialist economies - classic neoliberal economic argument fetishising the role of the entrepreneur which, largely, boils down to someone having capital to spend, increasing their net share of society's wealth.

[Anonymous No.11459899]

>>11459778

>You don't own the means of production if you actually have to sell your labour as a commodity where you don't perceive any of the surplus embbeded in it. You also don't sumbit willingly since you have to work for someone in order not to starve unless you already have a large sum of capital with which to begin an entreprise which would in turn exploit more workers. You are not free, you are a slave to the conditions created by the capitalist class, sorry mang.

Not the person you're arguing with, but how is this any different to any other economic model? By this logic you are also a slave to the state if you have to work for it in order not to starve. Also, slavery is a complete misnormer in this conversation; if the guy you are responding to has various options in order to gain income, then he is not slave, anymore than you are a slave to anything you need in life. Also, I don't see how you can argue he doesn't own his means of production if he has to sell it; it's his pregorative, if he didn't own it, it wouldn't be.

[Anonymous No.11459909]

>>11457286
I was lucky enough to cover Marx fairly extensively at University so when it came time to read Capital it certainly wasn't as hard going as I imagined it would be.

Might I suggest finding a Marx reading group? I'm sure there are some around. There's a lot to be said about reading and discussing the text in a group setting being guided by someone who knows the text well, which is about as close to a university class as I can think of right now which might replicate my own experience.

That said, if you are unable to do something of this sort there are plenty of secondary texts available which will help explain these concepts. The David Harvey book is the one a lot of people usually go for. One I'd go for is Ben Fine's 'Marx's Capital.' A very short text and very to the point. You used to be able to readily pick up a pdf version of it through a google search, I'm not sure if that's still the case, if not I'm sure there are ways of finding it.

[Anonymous No.11459917]

>>11459899
>Not the person you're arguing with, but how is this any different to any other economic model? By this logic you are also a slave to the state if you have to work for it in order not to starve.

Which is one of the criticisms of Soviet and Chinese socialism. In theory this should be fairer since the control of the state is in hands of the party, i.e the workers party, which is a transitional from from capitalism to socialism. In practice it is another thing altogether, but since we are discussing Marx's critique of capital it is irrelevant to the conversation.

>Also, I don't see how you can argue he doesn't own his means of production if he has to sell it; it's his pregorative, if he didn't own it, it wouldn't be.

You are confusing labour power with means of production. Labour is your capacity to perform a task in order to get economically compensated. For example, a cook sells his labour power to a restaurant owner in exchange of a salary. The fact that the cook brings his knife doesn't mean he owns the means of production, its just a tool. If the restaurant would be owned by the cook, the waiters and the rest of the staff they could reach a consensus without coertion as to how best to organize production. The fact that the capitalist owns the restaurant puts him in a position of power and imposes his will as the working condition, the fact that you can "negotiate" your salary is a mere formality only given to a few people and even in that case you would be alienated from the fruits of your labour since you receive an estipulated salary.

[Anonymous No.11459920]

>>11459909
Thanks man, there is always libgen

[Anonymous No.11459926]

>>11459917
Lots of morons in this thread would do well to read this post.

[Anonymous No.11459951]

>>11459917

>Which is one of the criticisms of Soviet and Chinese socialism. In theory this should be fairer since the control of the state is in hands of the party, i.e the workers party, which is a transitional from from capitalism to socialism. In practice it is another thing altogether, but since we are discussing Marx's critique of capital it is irrelevant to the conversation.

I am well aware, your argument was aimed at his assertion about him not being slave, not Marx's critique of the concept of capital.

>You are confusing labour power with means of production. Labour is your capacity to perform a task in order to get economically compensated. For example, a cook sells his labour power to a restaurant owner in exchange of a salary. The fact that the cook brings his knife doesn't mean he owns the means of production, its just a tool. If the restaurant would be owned by the cook, the waiters and the rest of the staff they could reach a consensus without coertion as to how best to organize production. The fact that the capitalist owns the restaurant puts him in a position of power and imposes his will as the working condition, the fact that you can "negotiate" your salary is a mere formality only given to a few people and even in that case you would be alienated from the fruits of your labour since you receive an estipulated salary.

I am not confusing anything; a computer scientist may have both the power of labor and the means of production. You're trying, in a condescendent manner, to explain basic Marxists tenets like Marxists usually do when they find themselves without an argument. Let me elucidate my point:

1. From your logic, a person is either a slave and/or never in charge of the means of productions if he or she is dependent on someone else for sustenance.

2. This is a basic truth for all of life, it applies in all contexts; you will need to fulfill some conditions, in order to attain sustenance. This is a tied to either a private or public enterprise in all economic models.

3. Since Marxism cannot free itself from this, it cannot be a superior option in this regard, as there is no difference between it or any other model.

4. In marxism, theoretically (a meaningless conversation, as reality usually proves otherwise) the workers are control of the means of production. However, if you argue (3), then they are slaves all the same; why defend it?

5. The person you're replying to is able to both produce software (as a freelance programmer might) and sell it as he pleases. There are no impositions, just market requisites (which are variable) that he may choose to fulfill. It happens that there is an authority figure (like the capitalist) in charge of these — how would this be different to any other authority figure that imposes the requisites?

[Anonymous No.11459958]

>>11457512
Kill yaself my boy

[Anonymous No.11460036]

>>11459951
Your second point is the give away and, again, telling of apologists, implying that capitalistic relations that have very specific impacts on labour, are a "natural truth". The wage relation and capitalist land ownership have a particular impact that you are failing to engage with.

[Anonymous No.11460057]

>>11457493
>a physics textbook
lmao that this is your example of something that would be relevant to my life, as opposed to an analysis of the economic system that runs the society I live in

[Anonymous No.11460060]

>>11459951
>1. From your logic, a person is either a slave and/or never in charge of the means of productions if he or she is dependent on someone else for sustenance.

>2. This is a basic truth for all of life, it applies in all contexts; you will need to fulfill some conditions, in order to attain sustenance. This is a tied to either a private or public enterprise in all economic models.

You are a slave to your bodily necessities, yes. That doesn't mean that collective ownership in any sort of way creates the same conditions since there is a democratic control on the means of production. We should attempt to democratice the way we produce things in order to avoid exploitation. And it is not a basic truth since private enterprise is not the same as capitalism. You might think Marxists are condescending to you but that might be because you don't understand the basic tennets.

>3. Since Marxism cannot free itself from this, it cannot be a superior option in this regard, as there is no difference between it or any other model.

You should define what you mean by Marxism. Das Kapital is not marxism as a political or economic doctrine, rather it is a scientific inquiry into the nature of capitalist reproduction, it doesn't claim any sort of superiority, socialism is something completely different from marxism and quite older than Marx. Again, not being condescending you just seem not to be aware of some basic facts.

[Anonymous No.11460067]

>>11459951
>4. In marxism, theoretically (a meaningless conversation, as reality usually proves otherwise) the workers are control of the means of production. However, if you argue (3), then they are slaves all the same; why defend it?

Im going to go ahead and assume that by "Marxism" you mean "socialism". Theory and praxis are two very different things. The socialist experiments in the USSR and China were very different with completely different outcomes. Marx always said that capitalism is not to be destroyed but overcome in order for socialism to properly function since it is capitalism which creates the conditions necessary for socialism. This can be seen with the deployment of the NEP in the USSR after the war communism phase. There are different approaches to this, there where the co-op unions in Yugoslavia which function quite well and were completely independent from the state; meaning the workers, not the party or the state, had complete control of the mode of production. Historical contingencies are key to understand the development of socialism in different areas but what seems obvious is that in a world where most societies are capitalist it is very hard to impose a socialist society. Even Marx claimed that the transformation wouldn't happen overnight and that it would take decades.

You are saying that because people need to work in order to live why bother try to make better working conditions where the very same workers reap the benefits of their labour and have a democratic say in the mode of production?There is a fundamental difference between a worker and a slave. A slave is completely alienated from the fruits of their labour a worker (in a socialist society) is not.

[Anonymous No.11460070]

>>11459951

>5. The person you're replying to is able to both produce software (as a freelance programmer might) and sell it as he pleases. There are no impositions, just market requisites (which are variable) that he may choose to fulfill. It happens that there is an authority figure (like the capitalist) in charge of these — how would this be different to any other authority figure that imposes the requisites?

Market requisites are impositions, there is nothing free about that. The market is just an expression of what the capitalists are willing to pay for something in order to profit from it. Again how that would be different, it is hard to say. The problem with being a freelancer is that basically you have to sustain yourself in very disadvantageous position since in any case you have to sell your labour in the form of a commodity in a price which the market dictates. In this case in a socialist state you would be guaranteed already the basic needs for life, and would be probably working for the state developing software. Of course I know that is basically “the same” and you are right, you are still alienated from the fruits of your labour but at least the surplus value won't be the profit of the capitalist, it would go to the state which in turn guarantees basic human needs for you and your compatriots. I understand this seems like a very convenient caveat on my part but I am not knowledgeable enough to tell you how a complete socialist society would function, after all I’m just a historian not a sociologist or economist. All the knowledge that I have comes from reading the first volume of Capital which goes to show you how instructive and didactic it actually is.

[Anonymous No.11460080]

>>11457286
is there an easy-to comprehend alternative in its critique of capitalism?

[Anonymous No.11460086]

>>11460080
Memes on facebook unironically

[Anonymous No.11460109]

>>11457286
Be a man and read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell instead.

Capital is fucking toilet paper.

[Anonymous No.11460112]

>>11460109
Nice critique you sure told those marxists on the internet!

[Anonymous No.11460116]

>>11460112

[Anonymous No.11460120]

>>11460116
Proving my point I see

[Anonymous No.11460122]

>>11457286
Just keep at it. I’m about half way through the son of a bitch. At a certain point it gets a lot more straight forward and even really engaging. I suggest just reading a section a day on the side while reading other books. There’s so much shit packed in there that you won’t get on your 3rd read through, you might as well just take your time with it and not butt rape your brain with theory.

[Anonymous No.11460127]

>>11460122
I'm really glad I'm rading actually. I understand now much more theory than before. Knowing what other people are talking about when the reference Marx is very helpful

[Anonymous No.11460152]

>>11459190
yeah wow marginalists absolutely btfo i can't believe i couldn't see it before, that a metaphysical proposition could be proven empirically

[Anonymous No.11460160]

>>11460060
>>11460067
>>11460070

You keep avoiding the issue at hand, I reiterate:

>From your logic, a person is either a slave and/or never in charge of the means of productions if he or she is dependent on someone else for sustenance.

If this is the case, then there cannot be a case for the applicaiton of Marx's ideals if both result in slavery, as they would if we follow what you argued above.

I am asserting that you are wrong on this count, and that a person is not a slave if he or she is dependent on something else for sustenance, which is what you were arguing. Do you agree?

[Anonymous No.11460172]

>>11460070

And incidentally,

To impose:

a : to establish or apply by authority impose a tax impose new restrictions impose penalties
b : to establish or bring about as if by force
those limits imposed by our own inadequacies —C. H. Plimpton

To require:

Stipulated as necessary to be done, made, or provided

They are CLEARLY not the same thing, no matter whichever mental gymastics you want to make.

[Anonymous No.11460184]

>>11459621
>no great art was made in a-pre Marxist society by people who were from a poor up bringing

[Anonymous No.11460189]

>>11460160
>From your logic, a person is either a slave and/or never in charge of the means of productions if he or she is dependent on someone else for sustenance.

Yes, I misunderstood you I argue that "a person is not a slave if he or she is dependent on something else for sustenance", he or she is a slave if their labour is used to create more profit for someone without seeing any benefits. But I never said that you are a slave because you are dependent of other people or because you belong to a society.

>They are CLEARLY not the same thing, no matter whichever mental gymastics you want to make.

Yes the definitions are not the same, that was why I said that they are actually impositions, not requirements.

[Anonymous No.11460359]

>>11459899
Marx's contention wasn't with the proles being "enslaved" or "oppressed" anyways. Talking about exploitation and surplus value was just a means of expressing where profit came from, the macro extraction of surplus product from the workers through paying them below what they produce. Which isn't even very contentious or groundbreaking, so I think the only reason people argue against it is because of terms like "exploitation".

[Anonymous No.11460442]

Slavery is a political enforcement/coercion of dependence you freedomlets

[Anonymous No.11460482]

>>11460359
His lifelong involvement with communist activism indicates that he cared at least to some extent. I'm sure he would have been chosen less moralistic terminology if he felt it was appropriate.

[Anonymous No.11460488]

>>11460482
>I'm sure he would have been chosen less moralistic terminology if he felt it was appropriate.

He hated that actually there is a whole footnote he dedicates to Proudhon lambasting him on the use of moralistic and idealistic terms in his analysis.

[Anonymous No.11460503]

>>11460488
He also didn't outright hate capitalism. He acknowledged it was an engine of progress in Europe unlike anything in history. He just thought it was flawed.

[Anonymous No.11460527]

>>11457730
>being this mad about other people’s success
lol /lit/

[Anonymous No.11460575]

>>11460160
This is pure neoliberal ideology - you are a slave because you have your basic needs catered for by the state and a structured career path instead of the freedom to """be an entrepreneur""" and contribute to the increasing inequality of society.

Absolute moron.

[Anonymous No.11460631]

>>11460575
I'm not even sure if the totally structured career path would be optimal for a socialist economy. I'd like to think there could be some variant of the "Valve Handbook" approach, where you have people given power in an industry or slice of economic activity based on their skills and the approval of people they'd be working with, but they're given an amount of freedom to pursue different things. A slight amount of chaos to avoid sclerosis, a lot of people really do hate the idea of being handed a path, even if it is secure. They don't even have to be entrepreneurial, there are just plenty of workers who resent corporate bureaucrats and hardened systems that won't allow them to optimize. Hell, games like Factorio, or city builders, or Football management sims sort of tap in to that natural desire to optimize. There should be space to allow people to do that. Ironically I think capitalism often impedes that space with precarity. Owners and managers keep workers under their egoistic thumbs by holding their jobs and career advancement over their heads. Large organizations become more and more political, more environments dictated by social relationships of power and prestige than market performance.

[Anonymous No.11460650]

>>11460488
Could you point me to it? I'm interested in reading it.

[Anonymous No.11460682]

>>11460650
Its somewhere in chapter 2 if I recall correctly

[Anonymous No.11460880]

>>11460527
>Implying he is not a NEET LARPer

[Anonymous No.11460887]

>>11457317
>How can anyone make any sort of critique/defence against/of capitalism or capitalist society without reading Capital is beyond me.
How about living under capitalism, experiencing how shitty it is, seeing how it effects people and destroys the human spirit and the earth, and thinking "hmm, this shit's fucked yo". Too proletarian for you?

[Anonymous No.11460937]

>>11460887
>How about living under capitalism, experiencing how shitty it is, seeing how it effects people and destroys the human spirit and the earth, and thinking "hmm, this shit's fucked yo". Too proletarian for you?

Actually is the other way around, this sort of criticism against Capitalism grounded on spiritual and humanistic reasons is purely bourgeoise. If you are gonna critique capitalism do it on solid empircal material grounds. Otherwise you are gonna sound like a retarded leftist

[Anonymous No.11460966]

>>11460937
You don't need to read a book to see how bad capitalism is. Ever been to a big city? I live in NYC and I can see it every day when I look out my window. Maybe if you're living out in the suburbs you need to read a book about it, but it's right in front of my eyes, and I can make a solid argument against it with that information.

[Anonymous No.11460988]

>>11457317
>don't want to sound like an ass
Well, that's the point.
Modern Marxism is for a bunch of pussies that don't want to get off their asses.
So, yes, I'm going to shit on you.

[Anonymous No.11461001]

>>11457286
It's not very hard if you're a STEMfag, as you'll be accustomed to it. Really it's a fairly easy text in the context of serious economics instead of psuedoideology wars.

[Anonymous No.11461015]

>>11460988
Or people who work and want more security like free healthcare or student loan forgiveness, but were told that that was socialism by the opposition and started thinking "what's wrong with that?". Ever since 2016 a bunch of libs got radicalized, not even from the Republicans but from Hillary and the big Democrats that said UHC was impossible or couldn't be done until we are all 50. The fact that those people are supposed to be "the left" in America drove a ton of liberals (mostly millenials) to become self-described socialists, and now they all either went out and researched Marxism or are being introduced to it through their social media feeds and memes.

[Anonymous No.11461024]

>>11461001
this. Capital is not that difficult. Wherever you run into issues understanding there is a mass of secondary lit and analysis that can assist you. He is one of the most read and interpreted writers in history.

[Anonymous No.11461053]

>>11460988
You are going to shit on my because I research my own views?

[Anonymous No.11461068]

>>11460966
No you cant, you can make a superficial argument at most. When a fucking liberal comes with good rethoric and good researched shit he is gonna shit all over your “undermining the human condition” arguments. You need to be radical and routhless in your critique and that means going into the root of the problem which is the circulation of commodities not that rent is higher, that you dont have healthcare or that EA is selling lootboxes. That is the difference between SocDems and communists

[Anonymous No.11461084]

>>11461068
I am radical and ruthless in my critique. I just don't need an 19th century economics treatise to refer to because I've spent my life hating our society and I know exactly why it's fucked up and in what ways. Sorry that you need to defer to other peoples arguments to support your own.

[Anonymous No.11461110]

>>11461015
"From each acorrding to his ability" - you have fundementally misunderstood Marxism if you think it has anything to do with "being lazy" - it demands that hard-working labourers are rewarded and the lazy capitalists and bourgeoisie who do fuck all don't leach off them.
Retards like you believe that it is capital, not labour, that produces value.

[Anonymous No.11461127]

>>11461084
It helps you better understand all subsequent marxist theory - no reason not to read Capital, even if it is to understand keenly the historical roots of Marxism - what social relations and material conditions led Marx to formulate his ideas? How have these conditions subsequently changed and how has later theory become either dogmatic or properly adapted to the new paradigm? This is the essence of Marxism.

[Anonymous No.11461140]

>>11461127
>>11461084

You are not radical and ruthless if you don't compare your ideas to important similar literature - your thinking is lazy, self-centred and privileges the individual which is bourgeois as hell

[Anonymous No.11461544]

>>11461084
I guess that approach is ok if you want to write a think piece for Vice making analogies to Broad City showing how "woke" you are.

[Anonymous No.11461604]

>>11461110

Yep. This mentality is the equivalent of thinking you can be an 'ideas guy' and do something great just by being an 'ideas guy.' The reality is that anybody can imagine forms, what makes them real is labor and the silent expertise of labor. Pretty much the only thing capital contributes is materials, and capital only has materials because of violence and political fiction.

[Anonymous No.11461642]

>>11459778
>You don't own the means of production if you actually have to sell your labour as a commodity where you don't perceive any of the surpmus embbeded in it.

Well, I either go alone and perceive the surplus or I go work for a capitalist and the mix of talents and tools he grant me to work with allow me to gain much more moneys that I could make alone. Since the capitalist helped me make money it's only fair he takes his share

>but his share is bigger

Yes, because:
1)he get a share from everyone who worked on the product
2)He'll need more money to keep the buisness afloat and this is in my interest he does so.

>You don't submit willingly because you can get hungry

That's stupid. I can refuse to work and starve to death or try to find another capitalist to work for. I have a choice, limited yes but that's the world we live in.

[Anonymous No.11461674]

>>11461084
>I am radical and ruthless in my critique

[Anonymous No.11461740]

>>11461642
You are obliged to engage in a relation with a capitalist in the first place and he will take surplus value and make conditions where you work beyond the hours in your contract. He isn't doing you a favour - his materials/factory is entirely worthless UNLESS you provide the labour. You are necessary for him to make money.

Idiots like you must think that people didn't work because there were no jobs before the capitalists.

[Anonymous No.11461746]

>>11457512
/lit/ may not like it, but this what top tier analysis of communist ideas looks like

[Anonymous No.11461748]

>capitalism
>socialism

[Anonymous No.11461758]

>>11461740
Yes and he may not be necessary for me but he sure as hell make my life a lot easier.

>people didn't work before
You always had capitalists people who led a bunch of other people and made money of them. Because it's a useful relationship.

[Anonymous No.11461780]

Tankies itt please just put your head under a tank tread already

[Anonymous No.11461785]

>>11461758
>capitalist social relations are human relations
Not even worth arguing with people like you.

[Anonymous No.11461798]

>>11461642
>Well, I either go alone and perceive the surplus or I go work for a capitalist and the mix of talents and tools he grant me to work with allow me to gain much more moneys that I could make alone. Since the capitalist helped me make money it's only fair he takes his share

You cant go at it alone, you need someone to sell your labour to, that is where surplus arises. Someone else will buy your labour and then extract the surplus in the form of the commodity you made which you are alienated from. Unless you own the means of production you cannot percieve the surplus from your own labour. I think people of this thread assume that because you are an entrepeneur that automatically makes you a capitalist which is not always the case. The capitalist class is not monolithic for sure, but the working class isn't either.

>but his share is bigger

He is not sharing anything that is the point, he gives you a salary but he doesn't share the profits.

>2)He'll need more money to keep the buisness afloat and this is in my interest he does so.

His position is completely superfluous, the workers could own the buisness and manage it themselves while still retaining their own surplus.

[Anonymous No.11461806]

>>11461758
>Yes and he may not be necessary for me but he sure as hell make my life a lot easier.

If you only knew how wrong you are...

[Anonymous No.11461813]

>>11461758
Capitalist production didn't really exist before the Industrial Revolution; there were some examples of Commodity Production as, in England at least, a proletarian class was being created from Primitive Accumulation.
Capitalist production really begins when surplus-value is reinvested into Productive Capital to generate more surplus value and so on; this didn't happen until the development of the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, the death of the Feudal Classes and the development of Industry (so Constant Capital could be built upon and overtake Variable Capital in production)

[Anonymous No.11462094]

>>11461785
What? Where do I say that?

>>11461798
>You cant go at it alone

Some do but fuck that I don't want to do that.

>Unless you own the means of production you cannot perceive the surplus from your own labory
>he gives you a salary he doesn't share his profit

And where do the salary comes from? The fucking profit he made by selling your work. So yes you're touching part of what you make him.

And hell, I just tought about that but what if you're working repairs for a big society? Let's say your role is to fix the machines or the softwares. You're basically only selling your mabour to one guy. Are you still oppressed?

>His position is completly superfluous

Pic related.

>>11461806
I'm right fuck whoring myself on forums and I have terrible homework ethic I prefer working in a serious place.