[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 774 KB, 997x1681, daskapital.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14292816 No.14292816 [Reply] [Original]

A man's labor is his own. He has absolute control over his labor. When working, the boss takes a cut from his labor. Why is it permissible to extract value from a man's labor when it is the man alone who contributed that labor? Why is it necessary to have a boss in the first place when we would all be more productive without them?

>> No.14292850

>>14292816
Just make your own business then

>> No.14292855

>>14292850
But the workers who work for me would run into the same problem

>> No.14292857

Cant a laborer overestimate their own labor value though?

>> No.14292862

>>14292855
It's almost like there's an inherent flaw in the idea.

>> No.14292867

>>14292816
Well, the reason why you would have a both would hypothetically because they would do the mental and logistical labor. Labor of relating to other bodies, creating deals, the allocation of resources, and principle the labor of decisions. The thing is, these functions do not have an exact material worth, but are indispensably necessary and a labor in itself. If your boss does not fill any of these roles he is without use, if he does, he is contributing labor and therefor should be compensated. The question is, how much.

>> No.14292892

>>14292867
They do labor, yes. But why should they be above the worker in hierarchy? Why not democratize it?

>> No.14292898

>>14292816
Boss takes all the initial risk and generate the whole direction and purpose of the work

>> No.14292919

>>14292898
Shouldn't the people actually doing the work have more say? Why not democratize it?

>> No.14292924

>>14292919
because that deincentivizes taking the initial risk so dumb dumb lever pullers wont have jobs any more and also why does being really good at hitting things with a hammer mean you know how to run a business

>> No.14292955

>>14292919
Excellence and creativity are extremely rare. Watch any interviews with billionaires, great artists or tech whizzes, they are hyper productive freaks. Letting people who can't steer a company have a say will just kill potential success. Pay can be negotiated, but the opportunity to work would never come about if so strangled by people who show up after the hard part

>> No.14292969

>>14292816
It’s almost like you enter into an agreement where you exchange your labor for a good, kinda like bartering or something but who knows. I’m not a jew so you might want to consult someone more deceiving and disingenuous.

>> No.14292971

>>14292892
Because having an inverted caste would result in collapse. Just think about how insane a highly mobile economic social strata would be for any long term existing entity.

>> No.14292979

>>14292862
there isn’t. the problem is that you are retarded

>> No.14292981

It’s almost as if it takes more than one person to produce goods for sale. Or that more than labor is necessary.

>> No.14292990

>>14292969
>>14292981
>heh im so smart its almost its almostttt communist dumb

>> No.14292993

>>14292971
It's not a caste system. Everyone would have a say in work, a more true form of democracy.
>>14292969
Please leave, you're ruining the civility with your nonsense. I want to discuss surplus value intelligently.

>> No.14292994

>>14292924
>because that deincentivizes taking the initial risk
No it fucking doesn't lmao
If you could drop a few thousand to start a business you knew you could get that money back from and then some you would do it, that's how a market works.
Even if you had a union capping your take, you would still make the investment if the alternative was not making money.
That's not even getting to your implication that bosses need to tell workers what do do or they'd all just flop down and die, co-ops literally exist, and several in Europe are quite successful, no figurehead making 1000 times what a worker does needed

>> No.14293000

>>14292816
a man’s labor is only his own if he has the power to possess it. The average prole doesn’t have the power nor will to possess his own labor, and the dominant classes are dominant due to the heritability both of wealth and of dispositions towards willpower, intellect, or cunning. Any talk of innate rights is like a bunny telling wolves that meat-eating is a sin.

>> No.14293013

>>14292994
co-ops rarely involve manual labour and there are absolutely many people in the world incapable of having a say in the running of a company.

>If you could drop a few thousand to start a business you knew you could get that money back from and then some you would do it, that's how a market works.
are you underage? how would you know you could get the money back? certainly some people would still start businesses if everything was democratized but the point is that LESS people would start businesses, so there would be higher rates of unemployment.

>> No.14293023

>>14292994
Do the coops just vote a guy to do major decisions or do they actually all just decide on something everytime?

>> No.14293105

>>14292955
>Steve Jobs exceptionalism
For every Bill Gates, there is a giant army of retarded, braindead Kathleen Kennedys. Even most of the ones touted as geniuses are more smoke and mirrors than anything else. Look at the leaked emails from the Sony executives in charge of their film studio, they had no fucking clue what they were doing.

>> No.14293126

>>14292816

But said labor only exists because of his boss?
You can't go labor in a vacuum, Marx would've known that if he'd ever had a job.

>> No.14293147
File: 767 KB, 640x1098, atlas-shrugged.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14293147

>>14292816
read pic related and stop being a cringe marxist jesus

>> No.14293155

>>14292816
My god the labour theory of value is literally pants on head retarded, for all the genuinely incredibly insightful and interesting critiques of capitalism they have it really is so sad the core idea underlying what Marxists believe is something even a lot of children can see is ridiculous.
The legacy of a fat out of touch jew and his aristocrat pals I suppose, all the galaxy brain theorising in the world won't save you from simply not understanding how a system you haven't been a part of actually works

>> No.14293162

>>14293155
>>14293147
Please present an argument or move on.

>> No.14293187

>>14293162
I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this shit again...
The boss isn't "taking a cut from his labour", your entire premise is incredibly misleading. Without the boss, there would be no means of production to seize. Do you understand that?

I'm hardly in favour of modern corporate serfdom but to act like some dumb assembly line prole would be producing shit without the boss giving him everything is absurd and I think you realise this.

>> No.14293199

>>14293162
because his boss is providing the work space, is responsible to pay his workers, for every accident, is competing on the open market

and the worker signed a contract which he could have declined but didnt because he agreed with the terms?

>> No.14293210

>>14292850
>>14292969
>>14293147
>>14293126
can’t believe /lit/ is filled with so many bootlicking faggot libertarians

>> No.14293223

>>14293210
I'm not a libertarian by any stretch, I believe in a BIG welfare state, social programs, work programs, strong protection of workers rights, living wage, single payer healthcare, etc.
Marxism is retarded, you fags should stick to your little Bakunin books and never be allowed to actually affect anyone's lives other than your own

>> No.14293230

>>14293210
>uhh if you don’t like capitalism just make you’re own parallel society

>capitalists are virtuous and smart and they deserve their massive amount of material wealth and disproportionate influence in society even though most are degenerate atheist jews who promote sodomy, individualism, liberal internationalism, and would let you die to make a quick buck

>> No.14293235

>>14292816
That isn’t Marx’s claim, it’s Ricardo’s. Ricardian socialists were arguing ‘labour is entitled to all it creates’ before Capital

>> No.14293238

>>14293210

>Everyone who disagrees with me is on the other extreme of the spectrum.

Just...

>> No.14293248

>>14293187
>Without the boss, there would be no means of production to seize

>> No.14293257
File: 329 KB, 600x399, 1491256395185.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14293257

>>14293248
I get to throw this one right back at you now

>> No.14293267

>>14293257
I'm not OP. Your meme about there being no means of production without a boss is beyond retarded. >What is a co op

>> No.14293287

>>14293267
>What is a co op
Something which requires government funding to compete in the market

>> No.14293370

>>14292855
make a workers coop you dumb ass

>> No.14293378

>>14293267
co ops are genuinely made up of well educated, reasonably intelligent people and not assembly line proles

>> No.14293401

>>14292816
That's not Marx, if anything it's closer to Locke. Marx never claimed labourers aren't individually compensated at their full value, he worked from that premise, but was talking about commodities produced collectively and sold back.

>>14292850
Ya that's a pretty good line. Businesses are started to be sold, no one wants full liability and they'll lose it in the long run.

>> No.14293442

>>14293267
I think the problem here is that we are seeing Boss as a hierarchical role rather than a specific occupation. I mean, usually one comes with another, but if we define the worker as a worker, not a subject, we are defining him by occupation rather than hierarchy, so we should talk about the role of a boss separate from its usual vestiges of of hierarchy.

In fact, hierarchy itself is just a subdivision of occupation. That being the occupation of dictation.

So, what you Are arguing against is specialization, not hierarchy per say, as the later is the product of the former.

However, humans are neither naturally fully specialized nor fully communal, they are a mix of both. They tend to fall into rough classifications, you can even see this physically with the difference between sexes. But also these specialization are not dogmatically devided, as a male and female have relatively similar faculties.

I think the bilateral classification of communal and specialized is the main disconnect here

>> No.14293450

Because the boss provides and outsources the infrastructure. The worker doesn't have to worry about sourcing raw materials, processing orders, shipping products

>> No.14293503

>>14293442
You can have no perceptible hierarchy and no one in control and everyone collectively controlled. Visible hierarchies are less dangerous perhaps.

>>14293450
The shareholders own that. Now why they collectively have come to pay executives such high salaries one can come up with many ideas besides them really bringing extremely rare necessary skills only they have maybe the market is just artificially limited by self-created perceptions of what they bring to the table by misinformed investors.

>> No.14293514

>>14293503
I'm not saying bosses should be paid what they are, I just think the hierarchical nature of capitalism isn't as bad as some people think.

>> No.14293527

>>14293514

Bosses are paid what they because if you don't pay them that amount they will go elsewhere. Do you think the CEO wouldn't pay them less if he could?

>> No.14293536

>>14293527
I think we're on the same page but we're talking past each other, I think bosses existing is a good thing and I can understand why workers' labor is being used to pay them and to facilitate other operations.

>> No.14293541

>>14293514
ok

>>14293527
Why don't Japanese corporate executives move to America since the wage differential is so high?

>> No.14293596
File: 14 KB, 252x200, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14293596

>>14292816
>Why is it permissible to extract value from a man's labor
The man is a defeated slave and must realize his higher potential

>> No.14293598

>>14293541

Because they don't speak English? Because their family/friends don't live there?

>> No.14293618

Value is subjective, doesn't depend of the amount of labor you put into something

>> No.14293633

>>14292816
>A man's labor is his own.
Okay.
>He has absolute control over his labor.
That highly depends on the situation, particularly if his trade involves reliance on others.
>When working, the boss takes a cut from his labor.
Well if he has a boss then a boss is someone who owns a company and has therefore "control of the labor".
>Why is it permissible to extract value from a man's labor when it is the man alone who contributed that labor?
He signed a contract.
>Why is it necessary to have a boss in the first place when we would all be more productive without them?
What law prevents you from starting your own business?

>> No.14293635

>>14293598
The cost of learning English and moving is offset a lot by the potential return to be had. If some people will just accept lower returns regardless things won't work out rationally.

>>14293618
What does that have to do with OPs muddled statement?

>> No.14293641

Marx was not a "worker" so why does he get to speak for them?

>> No.14293655

>>14293633
Property distribution means people don't control their labour. Obviously OP is a moron. People without substantial credit have no business starting a business, only property law is necessary to destroy his logic.

>> No.14293670

>>14293655
Not disputing that but I was at least trying to entertain him to maybe provoke a conversation.

>> No.14293676

This is not related to Literature. Wtf do the mods even do here

>> No.14293689

>>14293676
I'd like to inform you that we're talking about the surplus value theory from the work Das Kapital by Karl Marx. If you check the rules, you will find that it says this: "discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer".

As you can see, posters in this thread are talking about the theory from the book and making direct reference to the author while doing so. I would like you to leave this thread as you have demonstrated a profound ignorance of both the importance of Das Kapital as well as this board. >>>/r/eddit
Please leave, thanks!

>> No.14293692

>>14293689
You mean that book that spends 20 pages trying to autistically explain what a commodity is? lol, indeed relocate yourself to reddit.

>> No.14293696

>>14293689
>I'd like to inform you that we're talking about the surplus value theory from the work Das Kapital by Karl Marx.
Nowhere in OP does he mention that. Marx never claimed people owned their own labour, he operated under the assumption they sold it.

>> No.14293701

>>14293692
Shifting the goalposts.
>>14293696
I'd like you to continue reading the work as you clearly have not read it. Thanks.

>> No.14293703

>>14293701
>Shifting the goalposts.
Shifting the goalposts? I addressed a point in Das Kapitol directly. Typical nonsensical Pilpul garbage, typical of a Marxist. Same old thread with the same old dead ideology parroting.

>> No.14293706

>>14293701
>I'd like you to continue reading the work as you clearly have not read it. Thanks.
Cite me the passage where Marx claim labourers "own" their labour. He clearly discuses the conditions of alienation.

>> No.14293727

>>14293703
Yes, but you brought that up when it wasn't relevant to your previous post.
>>14293706
The worker has to own their labor to be able to sell it.

>> No.14293729

>>14293727
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz pilpul. bait thread.

>> No.14293743

>>14293727
>The worker has to own their labor to be able to sell it.
And after it's sold it's not yours which is the condition of modern production.

>> No.14294141

>>14293370
>make a workers coop you dumb ass
this sentence frightens and confuses the Marxist

>> No.14294236

>>14292892
The boss takes on the risk, liability, and the debt if the business fails. You take less money but you get the freedom to quit your job and work somewhere else but when you become a part owner you are now stuck to your business. Workers coops also have a problem with financing which is why they usually have buy ins and it's fucking dumb to have to pay $40k before your able to become a member. Especially if you don't know if you want to work their the rest of your life.

>> No.14294352

>>14293641
Einstein was not a "gravitational field" so why does he get to speak for them?

>>14293743
This. Marx even spells this out in Chapter 7:
>The use-value of labour-power, in other words labour, belongs just as little to its seller as the use-value of oil after it has been sold belongs to the dealer who sold it. The owner of the money has paid the value of a day's labour-power; he therefore has the use of it for a day, a day's labour belongs to him. On the one hand the daily sustenance of labour-power costs only half a day's labour, while on the other hand the very same labour-power can remain effective, can work, during a whole day, and consequently the value which its use during one day creates is double what the capitalst pays for that use; this circumstance is a piece of good luck for the buyer, but by no means an injustice towards the seller_

>> No.14294367

>>14293105
>>14292955
Steve Jobs and Gates were both braindead thieves, you’re not doing a good job defending billionaires

>> No.14294387

>>14294367
Not them but the point of CEO's is not even their creation of the company but the advantages to not having to become a part owner of every business you choose to work at.

>> No.14294426

>>14294387
Thank god that we have those bold, selfless CEOs taking that burden upon themselves.

>> No.14294443

>>14294426
I never said they were selfless but you can't deny the service they provide you.

>> No.14294456

>>14294443
Yes I can. They'd benefit me more by taking a bullet to the head.

>> No.14294458

>>14294456
You don't really care about a functioning economy huh

>> No.14294471

>>14292816
bosses are the wrong enemy to discuss. shareholders are much clearer.
when you think of a boss, you imagine a managerial type - someone who organizes the workers, perhaps even the person who came up with the business idea in the first place. everything that follows can then be defended on the grounds that the boss may well be making an unreasonably large contribution to the success of the effort.
shareholders on the other hand do not work towards the success of the business. their entitlement to dividends and profits from selling their shares after the business increases in value take place purely in the world of money. they make no creative contribution to the success of the enterprise, they put in no labor, they simply take the rewards that result from its success.

>> No.14294473

>>14294458
Not above the wellbeing of the citizens it's supposed to serve, no.

>> No.14294482

>>14294473
You know without a functioning economy the well being of the citizen goes down you fucking retard

>> No.14294502

>>14294482
And yet rhetoric about the GDP and the stability of the economy and brave job creators shafts workers every single day in the name of the imaginary bottom line.

>> No.14294527

>>14294502
Yes but how do you plan to have anything function when there is no economy. No businesses creating anything. No trading. How do you expect people to live?

>> No.14294543

>>14294527
At what point did anyone say "no economy?" Capital has completely eroded your fucking head to the point you cannot imagine life without CEOs any more than you can imagine one without any kind of rudimentary exchange of goods.

>> No.14294631

>>14294543
When there is no labor coming from other countries most of the products we make will be gone. So you gotta convince everyone not having iPhones or Doritos is a good thing. Unless this is a global socialist revolution (lol) as soon as you become socialist all the countries in the world are going to put embargos on you. You won’t be able to trade with anyone. Your economy and standard of living for your population is going to tank. The same countries will try to invade as they have done every single time it’s been attempted in history.

So you have your revolution right you can’t expect all these businesses to run the same. The trade deals, the partnerships, the labor from other countries. You’re going to have to find new methods for creating every product (which is gonna be hard when you have no trade with anyone), your going to have to retrain every single worker and even after that these companies and their products will never be the same because you won’t have the same benefits of being an established business. Uprooting everyone from their normal routines is gonna be tough.

Let’s say this all works out though and you have your socialist utopia. Every single worker in the company is now a part owner is liable for the debt if the business fails. The million dollar debt you have from materials/machinery will be on every single worker to pay off. Even if the business goes bankrupt. As you know if you read the statistics on workers cooperatives these places have financing problems hence why it costs a 40k buy-in before you allowed to become a member. How efficient do you think this is? Every time you want to move to a new state or get a new job you have to pay the 40k buy in and then become a part owner just because your the guy who puts the graphite inside the pencils and think you deserve more share of your putting graphite in a pencil.

And let’s say somehow you got everything to work how do you plan to convince the majority of people of any country to give up the possibility of losing their entire well being on an experiment which has barely any benefits. Do you really expect people to take up arms and have a revolution just because their boss makes more than them? The majority of people in first world countries have great lives and a high standard of living. You expect them to give that up because hey look at these numbers your boss is screwing you. Most people don’t give a shit and just want to have a home and a tv and food. Don't forget something like 99% of the businesses in the US are small businesses. Simply going Jeff Bezos isn't an argument. You can tax the fuck out of him under capitalism if you like and spread the wealth.

>> No.14294729

>>14292862
Yeah there's a flaw in the idea of a business under a capitalist system.

>> No.14294760

>>14294631
Oh wow, I never realized that transitioning the entire world away from globalist liberalism would be complex and difficult. I guess we should learn to never question the status quo again.

>> No.14294792

>>14294760
If you want people to go along with your plans you have to show examples of your plans working, especially if they involve some kind of totalitarian global upheaval

>> No.14294793

>>14294760
You don't have an alternative.

>> No.14294915

>>14294527
>No businesses creating anything.
No businesses are needed to create anything, just people and nature.

>No trading.
Trading isn't needed as well, it's just one of the methods of distributing things that have already been made.

>How do you expect people to live?
As human beings.

>>14294792
People don't revolt because they see some "convincing plans" but because they don't want to live in the old way. You need to read up on how the actual human history unfolded.

>> No.14294933

>>14294915
>No businesses are needed to create anything, just people and nature.
lol thats all you needed to post

>> No.14294938

>>14294915
>People don't revolt because they see some "convincing plans" but because they don't want to live in the old way. You need to read up on how the actual human history unfolded.
What we have now is mostly good and there is some bad. Normally for things to happen the bad has to outweigh the good. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

>> No.14294940

>>14293187
>I'm hardly in favour of modern corporate serfdom

yea. It's clear to anyone with a brain that what was once the role of the entrepreneur adds value beyond that of his average employee. His idea, his vision, his drive, and his organization.

How that has somehow devolved into mediocre corporate personalities climbing the ladder on the backs of competent individuals is another question.

>> No.14294944

>>14294729
is that why it works fucking idiot? lolol

>> No.14294952

>>14294915
>People don't revolt because they see some "convincing plans" but because they don't want to live in the old way.
Leaving aside whether this is even true, that doesnt imply socialism. The people might revolt for Fascism or any number of other options

>> No.14294985

>>14294933
Are you retarded? Everything not created by nature was made by people using shit found around them. There's no necessity in this process for the category of "business" to intervene at any point.

>>14294938
Maybe you should check news from Iran, Iraq, Hong Kong, Lebanon, Chile, France, Bolivia, Ecuador, I can go on...

>>14294952
wow no shit

>> No.14294998

>>14292816
Yeah. Why the fuck should I give the work of my labor to the state?! Fuck them!

>> No.14295017

>>14294985
youre a bit slow on the uptake, the fact that multiple options for revolt exist is why you want there to be successful examples of socialism so people gravitate towards it

>> No.14295019

>>14294938
>What we have now is mostly good and there is some bad.
Truly a galaxy-brain take

>> No.14295042

>>14295019
Wow the world is so bad said the 1%er on a computer in a house with a fridge filled with food. I want more money :( :( :( :(

>> No.14295070

>>14295017
No, again, in a revolutionary period masses gravitate towards either the reactionary or the revolutionary side based on their class position and the specific circumstances, and not based on "convincing plans" and "successful examples". I don't know where you would even get this moronic idea from.

>> No.14295081

>>14295070
>>14295042
Also, actually, we want no money.

>> No.14295099

>>14295070
>>14295081
You want a revolution to a new system but you have no idea what comes after the revolution. This is very logical.

>> No.14295105

>>14295070
You know we have examples of socialist societies and workers in history (and currently existing) and how they functioned and we can look at how their economies worked and see the problems with it. If your going to move to general socialist ideas like worker ownership you need to answer the criticisms.

>> No.14295106

>>14295099
I do have an idea.

>> No.14295113

>>14295070
The masses arent completely retarded they are aware of what kinds of things work and don't.

>> No.14295117

>>14295105
>You know we have examples of socialist societies and workers in history (and currently existing)
No we don't. Although I'm not sure I fully understood that sentence.

>If your going to move to general socialist ideas like worker ownership you need to answer the criticisms.
What criticisms?

>> No.14295125

>>14295106
Please continue

>> No.14295127

>>14292850
>jUsT bUiLd uR oWn gOoGlE

>> No.14295133

>>14295117
We have a lot of examples of people like you who call themselves socialists gaining power and what that tends to look like.

>> No.14295139

>>14295117
If you consider socialism to be worker or collective ownership we have many examples to look at. Some currently existing.

>What criticisms?
>>14294631

>> No.14295141

>>14295127
That's exactly what Google did lmao

>> No.14295167

>>14295141
No that's what federal grants did.

>> No.14295177

>>14295113
Yes, that's why they'll be ready to ditch capitalism once it gets into yet another global crisis.

>>14295125
If you don't have any specific questions then go read a book.

>>14295133
The masses aren't completely retarded they are aware of the difference between people calling themselves something and people being something.

>>14295139
I consider socialism to be collective ownership of the entire social product. We have zero examples of that.

>>14294631
This retarded post says some stupid shit about debt and financing. It's not even about socialism.

>> No.14295208

>>14295177
>If you don't have any specific questions then go read a book.
Wow great response to my criticisms. I'm sure you have a feasible system. I've been looking for a long time now and I haven't found anything but I'm sure you have the magical book?

Where do you get your system feasible system from Bookchin? Cockshott? Roemer? Gregory Dow? Are you reading through the academics journals on labor managed firms?

>I consider socialism to be collective ownership of the entire social product. We have zero examples of that.
>This retarded post says some stupid shit about debt and financing. It's not even about socialism.
Ah your a mega Marxist huh. Worker ownership of the means of production is just capitalism that dumb larping social democrats try to pass off. Now I'm definitely sure you have no economically feasible system lol

>> No.14295286

>>14295208
>Wow great response to my criticisms.
That's wasn't a response to criticism but to an invitation to give a lecture on a very vague subject. I can answer straightforward questions but I won't be giving lectures.

>I'm sure you have a feasible system.
I don't have a "system". Society doesn't transform through some enlightened individual coming up with a "system" that then gets adopted from scratch.

>Worker ownership of the means of production is just capitalism
No, it doesn't describe anything unequivocally. It can be socialism, but it can be also me and five of my buddies starting a co-op tomorrow.

>> No.14295311

>>14295286
>it can be also me and five of my buddies starting a co-op tomorrow.
do it fag

>> No.14295325

>>14295286
>I don't have a "system". Society doesn't transform through some enlightened individual coming up with a "system" that then gets adopted from scratch.
That's a great way to handwave any criticisms of existing societies and theories. We don't know what's gonna happen after the revolution but let's try it again trust me it's gonna be better. Can you just me a general gist of what kinda of society you would like to see?
>No, it doesn't describe anything unequivocally. It can be socialism, but it can be also me and five of my buddies starting a co-op tomorrow.
Abolishment of private property and worker ownership of all firms. Is this capitalist or socialist to you?

>> No.14295336

>>14292857
>no replies to the third post
i know what to expect from this thread

>> No.14295345

>>14295336
All the profits that come from the business are going to be shared equally so this wouldn't happen.

>> No.14295354

>>14292816
>A man's labor is his own.
Only if he isn't borrowing someone else's tools.
>He has absolute control over his labor.
Only if he isn't borrowing someone else's property.
>>14292816
>When working, the boss takes a cut from his labor.
As payment for his implicit hire of tools and property.

>> No.14295370

>>14292816
>A man's labor is his own. He has absolute control over his labor.
Well evidently not. If he did it wouldn't be possible to take it from him.

>> No.14295378

>>14295370
You ever heard of this thing we used to have called slavery?

>> No.14295401

>>14295325
>That's a great way to handwave any criticisms of existing societies and theories.
No, I don't see how it can serve to handwave any such criticisms. It can only serve to reject a single specific kind of non-criticism that you just presented.

>but let's try it again trust me it's gonna be better
We aren't saying it's gonna be "better" and we're not telling anyone to revolt based on trust in some personal vision. We merely point out that if the masses no longer want to live in the old way, then there's only one possible path that might lead to that.

>Abolishment of private property and worker ownership of all firms. Is this capitalist or socialist
"Worker ownership" makes it sound like there's still a working class, which doesn't make sense in the absence of private property.
Apart from that, even "no private property" suffices, because that's already only possible with social ownership. But then people don't understand private property, so "social ownership of the entire product" might be clearer, and it still means the same thing.

>> No.14295438

>>14295401
>No, I don't see how it can serve to handwave any such criticisms. It can only serve to reject a single specific kind of non-criticism that you just presented.
We have a long history of socialist revolutions and socialist political/economic theory and everything we have from them can be examined and critiqued. You are saying none of what been written or done in history is relevant. Do you not see the problem with that?
>We aren't saying it's gonna be "better" and we're not telling anyone to revolt based on trust in some personal vision. We merely point out that if the masses no longer want to live in the old way, then there's only one possible path that might lead to that.
What's the path? What comes after the revolution?
>"Worker ownership" makes it sound like there's still a working class, which doesn't make sense in the absence of private property.
Worker doesn't mean a class but someone who does work. I've never heard of a socialist who wanted to abolish a worker doing work.
>But then people don't understand private property, so "social ownership of the entire product" might be clearer, and it still means the same thing.
So then we have examples in history to look at where there has been "worker ownership".

>> No.14295523

>>14295438
>You are saying none of what been written or done in history is relevant.
No, I only recall saying that we had no examples of socialist societies in the economic sense.

>What's the path?
The only path leading out of the old way of living is the transcending of capitalism, capitalism taken as explained by Marx and Engels.

>What comes after the revolution?
The unitary society which is now in possession of the means of production produces and distributes according to a common plan.

>So then we have examples in history to look at where there has been "worker ownership".
I just wrote that "worker ownership" is too vague to entail socialism by itself.

>> No.14295550

>>14295523
>No, I only recall saying that we had no examples of socialist societies in the economic sense.
Yes because unless we have these 15 things that Marx said to abolish it's not socialism. There are no policies where we can look at the historical/economic data to look at to see if they work.
>The only path leading out of the old way of living is the transcending of capitalism, capitalism taken as explained by Marx and Engels.
See I was right. Now I know for a fact you have no economically feasible system. Smarter people than you have tried the Analytical Marxists already tried to make Marx feasible and they either became bastardized market socialists or capitalists.
>The unitary society which is now in possession of the means of production produces and distributes according to a common plan.
You said nothing there. What is the common plan?
>I just wrote that "worker ownership" is too vague to entail socialism by itself.
It's vague to you because you're a Marxist. Every socialist who doesn't masturbate to Marx agrees with the definition

>> No.14295659

>>14295354
>As payment for his implicit hire of tools and property.
That´s the point. He gets paid for "property", a pre-existing condition. Not production which is a process.

>> No.14295667

>>14295550
>Yes because unless we have these 15 things that Marx said to abolish it's not socialism.
It's not really 15 things, because every one of them entails all the others. E.g. you can't abolish value while keeping private property in tact, you can't abolish wage labour without abolishing value, etc.

>There are no policies where we can look at the historical/economic data to look at to see if they work.
That's correct. Socialism is not a set of "policies", but an entirely different mode of production. A "policy" can only exist within a framework of an already established mode of production. You can look at historical data, but what you will see there will be capitalism or feudalism or whatever else, but never socialism.

>Now I know for a fact you have no economically feasible system.
Yes, I already wrote that I didn't have a "system" like 5 posts ago.

>the Analytical Marxists already tried to make Marx feasible and they either became bastardized market socialists or capitalists.
It was the other way around. They were already bastardized as soon as they decided to attempt to shoehorn someone who completely rejected philosophy into the framework of philosophy.

>You said nothing there.
Yes I did, it just doesn't meet your retarded standard because you're still expecting some "system".

>What is the common plan?
It's when society makes conscious arrangements for how to use its resources when reproducing itself.

>It's vague to you because you're a Marxist. Every socialist who doesn't masturbate to Marx agrees with the definition
No, a socialist who doesn't understand Marx either has this vagueness mirrored in their head, that is they don't really know what they mean, or they only mean a modified form of capitalism, for example the one which simply has a lot of co-op enterprises, but then they're not even socialist.

>> No.14295715

>>14295667
>It's not really 15 things, because every one of them entails all the others. E.g. you can't abolish value while keeping private property in tact, you can't abolish wage labour without abolishing value, etc.
You can if you define private property as being private ownership of the means of production
>That's correct. Socialism is not a set of "policies", but an entirely different mode of production. A "policy" can only exist within a framework of an already established mode of production. You can look at historical data, but what you will see there will be capitalism or feudalism or whatever else, but never socialism.
Again great to handwave it will work this time comrade
>Yes, I already wrote that I didn't have a "system" like 5 posts ago.
Marx wrote a little on socialism you don't subscribe to the stuff he wrote?
>It was the other way around. They were already bastardized as soon as they decided to attempt to shoehorn someone who completely rejected philosophy into the framework of philosophy.
I'm talking about the economics side. It's about realizing just because you can think of a cool theories doesn't mean they are going to be feasible. They tried to put Marxist ideas into a framework that actually builds something concrete we can work with but couldn't find anything that actually worked economically. What you are doing is going on faith like religious people do with God. Here are some ideas and having a revolution will make a efficient economic system pop out of thin air seeing how we have no actual idea what's gonna happen.
>It's when society makes conscious arrangements for how to use its resources when reproducing itself.
Do you have any guesses to how this work. I think some places tried to do this.
>No, a socialist who doesn't understand Marx either has this vagueness mirrored in their head, that is they don't really know what they mean, or they only mean a modified form of capitalism, for example the one which simply has a lot of co-op enterprises, but then they're not even socialist.
Yes because Marx is the only socialist and God and there are no other movements in history. You are the real socialist I'm sorry.

>> No.14295733

>>14295667
A question to ask. Seeing how you don't have a system or any idea what's going to happen after the revolution. Do you think it's possible that you might be wrong and Marx's ideas actually aren't feasible or are you confident that it's gonna be successful?

>> No.14295736

>>14295659
>[The owner] gets paid for "property", a pre-existing condition.
The owner's property isn't a pre-existing condition. Location and tools have to be purchased, usually on credit. Property needs constant repair.

>> No.14295872

>>14295715
>You can if you define private property as being private ownership of the means of production
Abolish value? By private I don't mean individual but non-social -- part of society is excluded from it. Then if there's no private property, i.e. the means of production belong to society as a whole, then also the products belong to society as a whole. In such case products are no longer exchanged, because there are no separate, private owners to exchange among themselves in the first place. And without exchange there's no place for the intervention of value as we know it today.

>Marx wrote a little on socialism you don't subscribe to the stuff he wrote?
He wrote on socialism and I am talking about socialism. But he never laid out any systems, and neither am I.

>I'm talking about the economics side. It's about realizing just because you can think of a cool theories doesn't mean they are going to be feasible.
Philosophy or economics, doesn't make a difference here, because Marx criticized and rejected economics as well.

>They tried to put Marxist ideas into a framework that actually builds something concrete we can work with but couldn't find anything that actually worked economically.
What a retarded fucking definition of "concrete". They weren't doing anything concrete. They were circlejerking in the academia. You can't do anything concrete unless you're in the middle of the revolution and you have a dictatorship of the proletariat at your disposal.

>What you are doing is going on faith like religious people do with God. Here are some ideas and having a revolution will make a efficient economic system pop out of thin air seeing how we have no actual idea what's gonna happen.
No, that's not what I'm doing. I already said that I'm only pointing out the only logically possible way out of capitalism for those who don't/won't want to carry on. I'm not making any claims about systems, "efficiency" and what not.

>Do you have any guesses to how this work.
What do you mean? And what are guesses good for?

>I think some places tried to do this.
No, I think they haven't.

>Yes because Marx is the only socialist and God and there are no other movements in history.
There are many movements in history, but Marxism is the only one that is based on a correct understanding of society.

>>14295733
Which ideas? I might be wrong that society will be able to regulate its life on its own, but I have no reason whatsoever to assume that I'm wrong about it.

I'm off to bed now.

>> No.14295942

>>14295872
You're off to bed so it doesn't matter but if you do reply these are the only important ones.

>Philosophy or economics, doesn't make a difference here, because Marx criticized and rejected economics as well.
And Religion rejects science. Meaningless right.

>What a retarded fucking definition of "concrete". They weren't doing anything concrete. They were circlejerking in the academia. You can't do anything concrete unless you're in the middle of the revolution and you have a dictatorship of the proletariat at your disposal.
There are policies we can economically and historically know whether they work or not and whether they efficient. We understand mostly how the economy functions in a basic way and how a society should function if it wants to grow and survive. We have none of that for Marxist socialism. You are literally going on blind faith than an economic system will appear out of thin air like it's magically waiting to happen with no actual evidence to suggest it. Can you tell me how that's different from a belief in God?

>No, that's not what I'm doing. I already said that I'm only pointing out the only logically possible way out of capitalism for those who don't/won't want to carry on. I'm not making any claims about systems, "efficiency" and what not.

This is meaningless. You don't like capitalism. You want a revolution. You have no idea what happens after. It should end there. You have nothing of actual substance to work with and no one should take you seriously. (Most people don't)

>There are many movements in history, but Marxism is the only one that is based on a correct understanding of society.
Go on then

>Which ideas? I might be wrong that society will be able to regulate its life on its own, but I have no reason whatsoever to assume that I'm wrong about it.
The idea that Marx has something worthwhile and after the revolution this will bring about something worthwhile. Do you think there is a possibility that you are wrong?

>> No.14296132
File: 34 KB, 355x346, stirner1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14296132

>>14292816
Fine, then how about the workers actually secure and defend this "right over their capital" themselves, rather than rely on a "proletarian" dictatorship to help them? Checkmate Marxtards

>> No.14296291

I work retail and I can barely handle it and because I'm a stupid cuck I don't want to fuck up. Each day I get home and I think about how I fucked up that day or what I could have done better or anything at all. Or if I even locked the door. Or if someone will complain about me again.

Is this normal? How do I stop? I'm stressed out.

>> No.14296362 [DELETED] 

>>14292816
Read Dos Kapital, probably a bit more insightful than this shit

>> No.14296400

>>14295942

>We understand mostly how the economy functions in a basic way

We most certainly, unequivocally do not.

In the same way math proves things cannot happen to prove that the question is wrong, we have completely proven, with no doubt, that economic theory is a lie.

No system that is asymmetric, scalar divergent, spatially curls, non-ergodic, and non-martingale can have a theory of function. There is no working theory of economics.

>> No.14296421
File: 2 KB, 300x197, mkt_equlibrium.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14296421

>>14296400
B-but supply and demand curves

>> No.14296430

>>14296400
So if we have a specific economic policy and see that every time it's put in place around the world it's successful and we also have the data/equations that prove it and the consensus of the entire field it's irrelevant? How would you show the opposite if everything was against you that you could use to prove it?

>> No.14296436

>>14296421

I love these. It is like casting bones..

"...because the amount of stuff in the world and all the wishes and desires of all the pretty ponies get together and magically change the price!"


And lo an behold god makes all the trades work out even though you would never trade a pair of shoes you made for a NASA engineering contract....

>> No.14296455

>>14296430

Listen kid.. I know you believe the earth is flat. If that works for you fine. But there is not one consistent conservation law in economics. That is why they make up the bullshit about supply and demand and competition. It works on simple people like you because you don't know anything.

There is not one economic theory that works. If I have a machine with a bunch of gears that doesn't do anything, I can still notice pattern and conservations in parts from time to time, but that doesn't mean I can predict what it will do if I change things or that anything will stay consistent enough for it to do any useful work.

You go and define all those words I put in my post and come back to me when you can understand them...

>> No.14296459

>>14293210
>DURRRR BOOTLICKER DURRRR
what the fuck have you done to rise up against your corporate masters you little faggot, bitch and moan on 4chan? Communists are the most limp wristed little hypocrites jesus christ
>>14296455
>supply and demand are made up
Embarrassing

>> No.14296474

>>14296455
>But there is not one consistent conservation law in economics.
There aren't that many laws in science either. You didn't answer what I wrote.

>That is why they make up the bullshit about supply and demand and competition. It works on simple people like you because you don't know anything.
I don't think you understand economics. They don't use the curve in the way they think you do. If you are arguing in good faith and actually want to learn head on over to /r/askeconomics (academics moderate) and have explain to you what the purpose of the supply and demand curve is.

>There is not one economic theory that works. If I have a machine with a bunch of gears that doesn't do anything, I can still notice pattern and conservations in parts from time to time, but that doesn't mean I can predict what it will do if I change things or that anything will stay consistent enough for it to do any useful work.
You don't think economists factor that in when studying the data?

>> No.14296488

>>14296459

So let me embarrass you.

When you go into the store do you know how much supply there is?

Do you know how many others are wanting to buy it?

When someone doesn't buy it how does the seller know?

Does the product suddenly get made when enough gets sold, or does someone have to make it? If they make it then how is it a conserved quanty?

You see, you are a sucker. You have been given a simple relationship, the conservation of quantity, and so you think that if there is some magically knowable amount of people out there that want it, it is divided up and creates the ideal price.

If trade is supply/supply then how do buyers demand? Don't they have to have something to trade?

Everything about supply and demand is a con, that you fell for...
... because you are embarrassingly stupid...

>> No.14296500

>>14296488
I'm not an academic. Just a hobbyist so I don't want to explain something wrong. Please write your problem with the field of economics into a post on /r/askeconomics so people can answer your criticisms. It would be helpful for you and for me.

>> No.14296515

>>14296488
>if you aren't perfectly informed how do economic laws exist :^)
Disingenuous fag

>> No.14296521

>>14296474

r/economics... sigh...

You didn't answer my question.

What is a non-ergodic system?
What is scalar divergence?
How can a proxy system that continuously sources ever be rational?

Economist are politicians paid by rich people to protect their scam. No they do not take into account non-conservation..

And what the fuck do you mean that science doesn't have conservation laws? The whole of science is based on symmetry and conservation.

Where science runs into problems is when they cannot find conservation. Do you not know what an equal sign is?

I'm done with you. You can't think, you can only repeat.

>> No.14296528

so wait supply and demand is a meme?

>> No.14296534

>>14296515
>because economics is just like physics. God gave it to us. It's nature.
...just ... just stupid...

>> No.14296536

>>14296521
I will literally pay you money to post your criticisms to /r/askeconomics. They will dismantle every criticism you make. If you think your criticisms are so good what do you have to lose? You would make the post and show the world that you stumped the field.

>> No.14296546

>>14296528

Yup!

Big ol' lie made up so that you would allow the same market that balances products with a floating proxy of money to then paradoxically sell that money, sell production as if it were a consumed product, and sell labor as if the buyer weren't an agent.
Fooled you, didn't it?

>> No.14296560

>>14296528
>>14296546
He is just baiting.

>> No.14296562

>>14296536
>why don't you just ask my liberal r*dditor friends why you're wrong heh
Get off this board, faggot.

>> No.14296567

>>14296562
It's a subreddit of actual academics who answer questions. You know you would get ripped apart.

>> No.14296578

>>14296536

See, and that is how bullshit works.

I have already told this idiot what to do: to Look up ergodicity in economics; to Look up non-martingale systems in game theory; to Look up scalar divergence in economics. But he is too stupid to do so, so he tries the con artist trick of, "Oh yeah. well tell it to my gaming buddies and see what they think."

This stuff isn't posted on some stupid blog. It is printed in peer reviewed mathematical journals. This asshat won't understand it because he is in high school, so he tries more of his con artist shit...

Tiresome...

>> No.14296582

>>14296578
Why do you bait so hard? If you made it less obvious you could of kept me going.

>> No.14296679

>>14296578
Although I won't pay you money (I am a third-worlder) I'd like you to post your criticism on /r/askeconomics too.

If you don't, beware: I might post them myself if nobody posts them first.

Anyone?

>> No.14296689

>>14296679
Post them yourself. He isn't going to cause he knows the outcome.

>> No.14296707

>>14296689
I'd obviously have to create an anonymous Reddit account first. It's tiresome.

Would you post them for me?

(If nobody does, I eventually will and will also post the link in this thread.)

>> No.14296766

>>14292892

Because both are capable of doing labor's work but only the manager is capable of doing management's work

The story of capitalism is fundamentally one of the exploitation of low-IQ masses. And that's a good thing. To paraphrase Nietzsche, an aristocracy must be formed through the rank-ordering of men and it is a worthy cause that the masses should suffer and exist to support an aristocracy that pushes forward

>> No.14296812

>>14292857
No because you're not a worker if you're not being exploited

>> No.14296844

>>14292816
>reads 4 pages of Marx

>> No.14296857

>>14296707
>>14296689
>>14296578
>>14296536
Here. Posted if for him:

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/e6udav/so_i_was_browsing_4chan_with_the_lads_and_this/

>> No.14296865

>>14296291
You're working retail, buddy, not a nuclear power plant. The less effort you put in your work, the most money you're getting out of your employer.

>> No.14296873

>>14296857
Removed for some reason. I guess because you aren't supposed to post it like it's a debate but that you have questions about criticisms of the field.

>> No.14296884

>>14292816
The whole is more than the sum of its parts, dumbass>>14292892

>> No.14296974

>>14296873
Fucking shitty website so full of rules, my God.

>> No.14296995

>>14296974
It's a moderated academic subreddit so people don't post retarded shit and troll posts.

>> No.14297021

>>14296995
My post was a legitimate one.

>> No.14297109

>>14297021
Yeah but the place isn't to debate there are other subreddits for that it's to ask people questions.

>> No.14297126
File: 41 KB, 940x300, communist-workers-comic.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14297126

*dabs*

>> No.14297719

>>14295942
>And Religion rejects science. Meaningless right.
No, it's not meaningless. Religion happens to be wrong about rejecting science (in places where it actually rejects it), while Marxism happens to be correct about rejecting economics.

>We have none of that for Marxist socialism.
Because socialism is beyond the horizon of the present mode of production, while economics and bourgeois history are firmly within it -- they're limited by it, and they can't see past it to evaluate anything that lies beyond, such as socialism.

>You are literally going on blind faith than an economic system will appear out of thin air
Not out of thin air but out of capitalism.

>like it's magically waiting to happen
It's not "magically waiting to happen". It's constantly in process, because capitalism is a transitional mode of production between previous one and the socialist one.

>with no actual evidence to suggest it
The evidence is the development of capitalism, of the socialized mode of producing which is in constant contradiction with the private mode of appropriation.

>You have no idea what happens after.
I already told you what happens after. If the revolution succeeds then unitary society starts producing according to common plan.

>You have nothing of actual substance to work with.
We have a depth of understanding that goes back 180 years.

>and no one should take you seriously. (Most people don't)
Except those who also don't like capitalism and want a revolution will take us seriously once the class struggle gets sufficiently advanced and they realize that all the other self-styled socialists don't posses any understanding and historical experience.

>Go on then
Again asking for a lecture? Go read a book >>14294226

>The idea that Marx has something worthwhile and after the revolution this will bring about something worthwhile.
What the fuck does "something worthwhile" mean?