Richard Wolff vs Thomas Sowell

File: 80 KB, 539x421, Richard_D._Wolff_in_2015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Richard Wolff vs Thomas Sowell Anonymous Sat Oct 3 21:30:12 2020 No.16502448 [Reply] [Original]

Marxian Economics vs Chicago School
Who would win?

Richard Wolff:
>Wolff earned a BA magna cum laude in history from Harvard in 1963 and moved on to Stanford—he attained an MA in economics in 1964—to study with Paul A. Baran. Baran died prematurely from a heart attack in 1964 and Wolff transferred to Yale University, where he received an MA in economics in 1966, MA in history in 1967, and a PhD in economics in 1969. As a graduate student at Yale, Wolff worked as an instructor. His dissertation, "Economic Aspects of British Colonialism in Kenya, 1895–1930", was eventually published in book form in 1974.

Thomas Sowell:
>Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, DC, and attended night classes at Howard University, a historically black college. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics. He earned a Master's degree from Columbia University the following year. Sowell received a Doctor of Philosophy degree in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968. His dissertation was titled "Say's Law and the General Glut Controversy". Sowell had initially chosen Columbia University to study under George Stigler, who would later receive the Nobel Prize in Economics. When he learned that Stigler had moved to the University of Chicago, he followed him there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 21:32:51 2020 No.16502467 >>16502448 The one who's not a commie. Wow that was easy

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 21:34:22 2020 No.16502480 >>16502448 The one who's not an uncle tom. Wow that was easy

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 21:36:40 2020 No.16502495 When you read them, you would win because you'd side with Wolff

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 21:42:22 2020 No.16502517 File: 148 KB, 659x1024, wolff-marxism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Is Wolffs writing good? I'm thinking about getting this, since I kinda want to get into Marxism but I don't want to read thousands of pages of Capital

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 21:46:50 2020 No.16502544 Thomas Sowell is 90 years old

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 21:48:50 2020 No.16502551 File: 22 KB, 133x234, 1357007312828.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Based Sowell, how is this even a question?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 21:51:35 2020 No.16502568 >economics Into the garbage it goes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 21:54:28 2020 No.16502585 >>16502448 Don't fall into this false dichotomy, both are fucking retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:06:52 2020 No.16502645 >>16502585 Absolute pseud tier take.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:14:53 2020 No.16502688 id rather see warren moselr or randll wray vs sowell, that would be a bloodbath, love seeing austrians exposed for not understanding finance

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:16:03 2020 No.16502697 >>16502448 Probably Sowell because Wolff's understanding of Marxism is fucking retarded

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:18:25 2020 No.16502709 >>16502688 How much more do currencies have to lose purchasing power before you fools embrace the gold standard again?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:20:39 2020 No.16502718 >>16502645 Both are literally retarded though, Marxian economics is fucking retarded, Chicago school is slightly better but is still retarded. Take the New Keynesian pill.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:20:57 2020 No.16502720 Sowell, nobody takes Marxism seriously, so the Yid loses by default.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:24:02 2020 No.16502727 Interesting how the one that got everything given to them is a commie while the one that had to work for everything they have is a liberal. Interesting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:25:28 2020 No.16502735 File: 461 KB, 640x479, 0011EA83-4305-4124-AE7A-9747B648C09D.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] UNCLE TOM UNCLE TOM UNCLE TOM UNCLE TOM UNCLE TOM UNCLE TOM UNCLE TOM UNCLE TOM COON

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:28:09 2020 No.16502748 >>16502727 Uhhh wolffs dad is a steelworker and his parents are refugees from nazi germany retard

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:28:37 2020 No.16502751 >>16502748 And?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:33:34 2020 No.16502768 Reminder that economics is worse than psychology

Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:39:27 2020 No.16502795
File: 78 KB, 900x884, C0F2ABF7-3CCD-453C-BF0E-64CC30176A03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Sowell
>grew up poor in 1930s America as a black man under Jim Crow laws
>never got to meet his parents; his dad died before he was born and his mom died when he was an infant
>went through a lot of abuse and hard times
>served in the military for two years during the Korean War
>worked his way to Harvard then Chicago
>has experience working in the public sector
>unironically understands Marx on a deeper level than 99.99% of Marxists
>went on to win many awards, including the National Humanities Medal, and respect from top economists like Hayek and Friedman
>speaks in a calm, slightly monotone voice because he cares about the facts

Wolff
>grew up relatively well off
>has no experience in the public or private sector, or the army
>spent his entire life working in academia
>is a Marxist in the current year lmao
>no one aside from far leftists listen to him
>claims to speak for the working class but he has no idea who they are, how they live, or how businesses operate
>speaks very theatrically and waves his hands around like a headless Italian

Regardless of who’d win a debate, I know who has more of my respect.

Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:39:47 2020 No.16502799

>>16502448
Sowell, obviously.
His style of economics has flaws, but is empirically based and on the right track. He studied under Nobel Prize winners and is a well-known figure in the field.
Taleb himself likes Sowell, though he is perhaps the biggest living critic of economics.

Richard Wollf is merely trying to make his religion sound well-adapted to modern ears. A lesbian pastor of sorts.
He is unknown in the field.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:43:32 2020 No.16502813 >>16502795 Tom Sowell is an unironically based black man. The victim complex has really knee capped da community.

Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:52:47 2020 No.16502852

>>16502448
>Sowell has said that he was a Marxist "during the decade of my 20s;" accordingly, one of his earliest professional publications was a sympathetic examination of Marxist thought vs. Marxist–Leninist practice.[7] However, his experience working as a federal government intern during the summer of 1960 caused him to reject Marxian economics in favor of free market economic theory. During his work, Sowell discovered an association between the rise of mandated minimum wages for workers in the sugar industry of Puerto Rico and the rise of unemployment in that industry. Studying the patterns led Sowell to theorize that the government employees who administered the minimum wage law cared more about their own jobs than the plight of the poor.[8]

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:54:48 2020 No.16502860 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgiC8YfytDw

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:55:45 2020 No.16502862 >>16502718 >he isn't Post-Keynesian

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 22:58:24 2020 No.16502874 >>16502517 you need to read all of Capital

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sat Oct 3 22:59:23 2020 No.16502875 File: 54 KB, 445x600, 10CA6864-6657-4543-BF59-2083A7051C19.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16502517 Yeah, he’s real easy to read.

Anonymous Sat Oct 3 23:17:58 2020 No.16502949
File: 145 KB, 1060x832, 1506029483691.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16502467
>>16502551
>>16502568
>>16502697
>>16502718
>>16502720
>>16502727
>>16502795
>>16502799
>>16502813
>>16502852
>>16502860
>>16502862
Imagine being a wageslave apologists, fucking cucks. Marxism is the cure for so many ills of this world. Basically all you guys are complicit in war, poverty, inequality, corruption, environmental damage, alienation, and so on. Kinda sad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 23:21:43 2020 No.16502959 >>16502949 >war, poverty, inequality, corruption, environmental damage, alienation, and so on ie things that happen under communism

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 23:23:58 2020 No.16502963 >>16502949 GUYS LOOK, THE RETARD FOUND A SOLUTION TO INEQUALITY! WE"RE SAVED!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 23:28:15 2020 No.16502978 >>16502949 Marxist states are more prone to war and genocide than Capitalist states.

Anonymous Sat Oct 3 23:33:10 2020 No.16502994
File: 669 KB, 1844x2348, 1489947940909 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16502959
>>16502963
>>16502978
Within Marxist theory, modern warfare is described as existing as result of capitalism. Marxist theory states that all modern wars are caused by competition for resources and markets between great and imperialist powers, claiming these wars are a natural result of the free market and a class system.
The only wars communists nations fought were wars of self defense. Read some Lenin.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sat Oct 3 23:33:16 2020 No.16502995 >>16502959 Where are the communists, Peter? >>16502978 Marxism as an economics discipline is still valid, the political aspects to achieve this fabled commune have moved on >>16502963 We have

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 23:37:28 2020 No.16503015 >>16502448 No one both are retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 23:39:10 2020 No.16503023 >>16502949 >complains about the effects of corporations and late stage capitalism >proceeds to be right wing What the fuck goes on in these people's brains I don't understand it at all

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 23:42:38 2020 No.16503039 >>16502994 Is this bait? Have you never heard of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 23:46:00 2020 No.16503051 File: 82 KB, 770x433, 9A7ACFD3-0AC5-4ACC-BDC3-3310F23E6547.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Sowell is basically Chomsky if he was black and liked free markets. I like both of them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 23:54:27 2020 No.16503086 >>16503039 Literally a proxy war funded by imperialist powers after the communist party in Afghanistan took power.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 3 23:59:23 2020 No.16503110 >>16503086 The main people to significantly wage war beyond their own frontiers have been capitalist imperialists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 00:01:34 2020 No.16503120 >>16503110 Yes, that's my whole point.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 00:06:53 2020 No.16503149 >>16503120 So basically communism works if no one wages war against it, otherwise it fails. Meanwhile plenty of wars are waged against capitalist countries and they go on just fine.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 00:10:21 2020 No.16503173

>>16502949
>Imagine being a wageslave apologists, fucking cucks.
Capitalism is the greatest engine for lowering poverty in the world. I care about the material conditions of the poor, therefore I am a capitalist.
>Basically all you guys are complicit in war,
The USSR was just as imperialistic as the U.S. was. The difference is that USSR imperialism created North Korea while America created South Korea.
>poverty,
Incorrect since capitalism reduces poverty by creating an explosion in material wealth. Socialists are the ones complicit with poverty.
>inequality,
There's nothing inherently wrong with inequality. Would you rather have 10k of wealth in a society with little to no inequality or 100k of wealth in a society with massive inequality, assuming of course the currencies in both societies have equal spending power? It's better to focus on helping the poor than hurting the rich, who become rich under capitalism by creating products people want to buy at lower prices or better quality.
>corruption,
There is no such thing as a society without corruption. Socialist countries were rife with corruption and anarchist societies tend to either be so small as to be barely worth any note or they were wiped out.
>environmental damage,
Planned economies produce more pollution per unit GDP, as with the soviet economy producing 1.5 x the pollution the U.S. per GDP. Market economies use resources more efficiently and only need to be corrected by having the cost of the environmental damage appear on the bottom line via taxes.
>alienation
I care about people's basic needs being taken care of more than I care about them disliking being told what to do by a boss.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 00:10:27 2020 No.16503174 >>16503086 The communist regime had very little popular support and only initially gained power in a coup

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 00:16:35 2020 No.16503207 >>16502448 Marxists belong in graves. Marxist economies have never fucking worked how do people fall for this dumb shit?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 00:19:16 2020 No.16503219 >>16503110 Attacking other countries and subjugating them to your empire is what all good nations do. Sorry that communist got assfucked and died out because it was so stupid lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 00:20:56 2020 No.16503228 >>16502994 >Defending yourself by annexing Estonia Stalin’s psychology was identical to that of the Tsar. An alpha male who wanted territory and power. 100 times the man of any limp-wristed modern day pinko college kid.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 00:23:59 2020 No.16503235 >>16503173 Half of the world lives off less than $5 a day Please explain to me how capitalism is lowering poverty for them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 00:25:51 2020 No.16503246 >>16503235 >Half of the world lives off less than $5 a day And stuff is way cheaper there, too. Why do Marxists hate honesty and embed themselves in a web of lies?

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sun Oct 4 00:33:47 2020 No.16503276 >>16503246 >Taking credit for Dengism You’re the liar. Since the attack on unions poverty in the US has increased. This nation is heading into a depression that it has no desire to end

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 00:36:03 2020 No.16503280 >>16503276 Poverty has decreased since the 50’s dunno what you’re on about

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 00:55:09 2020 No.16503347 >>16503149 Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc still exist.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 01:02:01 2020 No.16503381

>>16503173
>Capitalism is the greatest engine for lowering poverty in the world.
Be me, live in third world, own a small farm make enough to feed my family. Suddenly land get privatized, have to work glueing shoesoles, breathe fumes everyday live expectancy lowered, my wife and kids have to work as well now. Live in a smaller shack. Technically my income increased.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 01:09:15 2020 No.16503412

>>16503235
What a dumb point. Just telling me that some people only make a certain amount a day tells us nothing with regards to whether they'd have more if the world was more socialist.
Americans and Europeans lived off about $3 dollars per day pre-capitalism and now live on about $100 post capitalism, so an about 30 fold increase.
Nations will only increase their wealth when they have the institutions conducive toward that end. They must have property rights, a reliable legal system that enforces them, and a relatively free market economy. When that happens, we get growth miracles where previously poor countries start catching up fast to developed countries, as with the asian tiger economies. You also find that European countries that embrace free market capitalism tend to do better than ones that do not. Ireland, for example, has exploded with economic growth in recent years.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 01:24:20 2020 No.16503468 >>16503347 Only Cuba and Laos are still actually communist

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 01:25:25 2020 No.16503471

>>16503381
>Be me, live in third world, own a small farm make enough to feed my family. Suddenly land get privatized

....How did you own something that wasn’t private?

> Suddenly land get privatized, have to work glueing shoesoles, breathe fumes everyday live expectancy lowered, my wife and kids have to work as well now. Live in a smaller shack. Technically my income increased.

The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 02:07:32 2020 No.16503619 File: 153 KB, 559x659, 1569831214803.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16502448 No Marxist has ever correctly analyzed any economic situation, ever, in the history of the human race. So, Sowell. Even a nigger is smarter than a Leftoid.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sun Oct 4 02:09:09 2020 No.16503626 >>16503619 Go be dumb somewhere else

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 02:09:19 2020 No.16503628

>>16502994
>Within Marxist theory
So, whatever the fucking Jews feel like constitutes the Marxist theory today, to be clear. Because evil JewTrotsky sure took literal bags full of gold from Jewish bankers back to fund the Bolsheviks.

Thank God we have crushed your disgusting cult beneath our heel. I only hope that we will recognize that it is Jewishness itself that is the enemy before long, and crush that as well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 02:10:33 2020 No.16503636 File: 279 KB, 500x281, 1597739220817.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16503626 Nope. This place is mine and I don't have to negotiate with you. You don't get a say. Leftists are basically animals you can have sex with.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 02:48:19 2020 No.16503798 Do marxists even use math? Seems like all of them study history, not econ.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 02:48:56 2020 No.16503800 >>16503636 Then why is my dick in your ass as we speak faggot

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sun Oct 4 03:27:45 2020 No.16503902 >>16503636 >>16503798 Try reading to find out.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 03:54:10 2020 No.16503946 >>16503902 It's not economics. Stop pushing that it is. Bunch of tards that don't even know business calc trying to push it as econ.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:18:47 2020 No.16504014 >>16502949 Seethe more and dilate, tranny faggot LOL

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:19:57 2020 No.16504017 >>16503626 Your mom is a public urinal for every man, she just loves chugging litres and litres of piss down her filthy throat

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:23:23 2020 No.16504023 >>16503626 You have been exposed as ignorant so many times in so many threads that I don't know how you are not ashamed of still posting here. At least post anonymously instead of being publicly humiliated even further by using a tripcode.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:25:30 2020 No.16504027 >>16502949 I unironically hope Marxism makes a comeback so tens of millions of sub humans die.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:28:56 2020 No.16504038
File: 601 KB, 1280x1960, e68820b79627585cdb5e6bdbc1789a6858a5039d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16503946
Economic mathematical models are usually just circlejerks, once you take real world factors like time into account it becomes impossible to solve due to the infinite amounts of results. The root of capitalism is the employee, employer relationship. Take the marx pill.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:30:58 2020 No.16504043 >>16502448 Economics isn't real, so they're both wrong on that front. Sowell is the more respectable figure though, so I'm gonna have go with him

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:31:35 2020 No.16504046

>>16502448
>Richard Wolff
Watched his intro talk to marxism. He is a good talker, so I was hooked. But I really had to stop the video when he started to address the main arguments of communism. How stupid is this? I mean I don't think that HE is stupis but why do intelligent people believe such nonsense?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:39:58 2020 No.16504068 File: 131 KB, 960x591, 0d2e2347c385fc1dead073e4348301c701a0e6b3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16504046 Good one porky, let us be in wageslave forever.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:43:22 2020 No.16504078

>>16504038
That Princeton study has been challenged with more research. For one, looking at opinion polls of the rich only explains, iirc, 7% of the variance in outcomes with respect to which pieces of legislation get passed. Second, the middle class and poor actually overwhelmingly agree with the rich to a significant degree. Third, when the rich and middle class do disagree, the split is more 50/50 than one class interest always winning over another. Funny enough, the rich in America are more supportive than the middle class and poor for the policy of public financing of elections, which is a policy that would give everyone more say in political process.

A bunch of other dumb bs in that chart but it citing a now irrelevant study is enough to bring home the point of its bias. But the idea that workers have wealth stolen from them is a big mega LUL that only an indoctrinated retard would buy.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:50:22 2020 No.16504102

>>16504068
What I mean is that he made the argument when there is a minimum wage the boss will try to go against it and there is a possibility that he will succeed in abolishing it. So we should not only introduce a minimum wage but also take away the power of the boss to take it away, so everyone will be on a level playing field.
But the problem is that this power imbalance is the natural order in the work place. When you don't do anything and let things just be, the boss will have the most power. To change that you literally have to have someone with MORE power than the boss, otherwise you can't take away his power. So in order to fight a power imbalance you create a greater power imbalance. That's the main flaw of communist states and that's why every one of them turns to shit.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:53:15 2020 No.16504113

>>16503023
The problem with Marxists, is that they assume atheism is objectively better way of being, and reduce everything down to a historical materialism.
Now whether you think that's right, and objectively the best way to realise a society based on labour etc, is one thing, but you forget that not everyone agrees with you about Religion or materialism.
I am against capitalists, against the globalist neoliberal jewry, but I value the transcendent. I do not believe that all of culture and human relations can be reduced to the cause and effect of material concerns.

There is a huge chasm between us, not because of your economics, but because of your cultural estimation of Religion. And the vitriol you receive as a Marxist does not wholly stem from the rejection of commune, but the fact that proponents of your creed have historically been anti-religion, anti-family-unit and anti-nation in every society that Marxism wasn't taking root - in a bid to give it more sway.

That is why there are Fascists wanting to solve the same problem in a different way.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:53:20 2020 No.16504114 File: 705 KB, 2880x2020, b328723ca01024aaa19aa20b28cdaa64c0134b04.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16504102 >what are labour unions >what are strikes >what is the dictatorship of the proletariat

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 04:56:28 2020 No.16504131

>>16503023
Many of the problems they have with capitalism are those elements that would be carried over into a socialist system. There are plenty of people who are more than economic automatons concerned only with the amount comforts that can be lavished upon their body.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 05:04:42 2020 No.16504154 >>16504114 How does that refute anything that I say? The one person or the one group that is able to take away the natural power of the boss has more power than him.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 05:04:59 2020 No.16504155

>>16504113
Marxism tends to not just be against capitalism, but also against the systems that justify and uphold it. You cannot be against the monarchy and yet support a church that preaches the divine right of kings. In the same way, while religion excuses and justifies hierarchy and exploitation, Marxism must by necessity oppose it.

That said, there are plenty of people who manage to reconcile Marxism and religion. It's called liberation theology.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 05:07:29 2020 No.16504162

>>16504068
Country A allows investors to control their assets.
Country B does not allow investors to control their assets, but instead forces them to yield equal control of it to the random janitor they hire to mop floors 10 years after putting in all that risk (most businesses fail.)
Which country will have more investment in business?
>>16504114
Socialist Republics: People have less and starve but they have less and starve in a more equitable fashion
Communism: Fantasy land that will never happen.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 05:11:08 2020 No.16504173 >>16504017 >t. porn addict loser

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 05:16:05 2020 No.16504190 >>16504162 Country B is called The Federal Republic of Germany, which as we all know is starved for investment

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 05:26:22 2020 No.16504215 >>16504154 What has power to do with anything? This is about class relations, you dumb dumb.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 05:34:19 2020 No.16504248 File: 3.79 MB, 1480x1623, 3e293bd312bfa31616e9813dfca85777e9dc06e2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16504113 >idealism

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 05:40:39 2020 No.16504263

>>16504190
Damn, when did Germany become so breadpilled that it mandated that all businesses be co-ops?
Oh wait, it didn't. It just mandated that 40% of the board of large businesses be worker voted. Investors still have majority control. Now what would investors do if every business was 100% worker controlled as the image suggested is a good idea?
Not to mention that Germany could stand to have its market more liberalized, but hey.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 05:40:52 2020 No.16504265

Isn't Marx's line about "Religion being the opium of the masses" misinterpreted?

These days, you read that line (and don't read the lines before and after it about it being the heart of heartless conditions and the soul of a soulless world) and you think "Aha, Marx is saying that religion is a dangerous and destructive drug that will ultimately kill you."

But Marx is a mid-19th century man. In his time, opium wasn't seen that way. It was just medicine, something a doctor would prescribe to you. It had the moral weight of taking Xanax.

To read the line with the associations of the modern day, Marx basically says "Religion is the paracetamol of the masses."

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 05:50:27 2020 No.16504285 >>16503381 I can invent bullshit hypotheticals to help my cause too

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 06:06:54 2020 No.16504324 File: 32 KB, 600x655, 159164346535.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16502748 >My grandfather died in WW2, so basically I'm a warhero.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 06:08:40 2020 No.16504328 File: 114 KB, 1024x730, rippetaleb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16503207 >Marxist economies have never fucking worked how do people fall for this dumb shit? They don't have skin in the game.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 06:19:24 2020 No.16504352

>>16504328
Marx was originally reacting to the horrendous working conditions of factories in the 1800s where workers were literally worked to an early death via 18+ hour days, 6 days a week in brutal conditions. The fact is capitalist economies have not worked very well for huge portions of the population. The 5 day work week and 8 hour work day limits are largely thanks to Marxist and Socialist movements

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 06:21:01 2020 No.16504360

>>16504215
Labour unions have immense power and usually end up being very bad for the economy.
For instance, here in Brazil the tax-drivers unions almost managed to ban Uber, even though most of the country is poor and Uber is very helpful for poor people.

Brazil is filled with unions and they are famously unpopular and unproductive. There is even a union of workers who work in unions, believe it or not.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 06:24:33 2020 No.16504365

>>16504360
Uber is majorly exploitative of their drivers, the problem is unions and employers are two opposing forces who, if one side given too much power, make everything worse. There needs to be a reasonable balance of powers so the business runs smoothly but the workers get a fair shake.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 06:25:32 2020 No.16504371 >>16502448 >credentialism fucking gay also, a nazi would btfo both of them

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 06:32:06 2020 No.16504379

>>16504352
I don't understand how that adresses anything. Marxists by and large don't have skin in the game.
>Marx was originally reacting to the horrendous working conditions of factories in the 1800s where workers were literally worked to an early death via 18+ hour days, 6 days a week in brutal conditions.
The irony is palpable.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 06:46:01 2020 No.16504428
File: 277 KB, 1292x628, dd1778ed7c94728e89df2284cbeee85df4c688b5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16504379
Yeah, and socialist movements demanded change of their working conditions, porky just moved it overseas though. The west is blind to what happens in the rest of the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4AegesdCsY

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 06:49:49 2020 No.16504436 File: 872 KB, 750x734, 1601275183204.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16504428 >Socialism works if Everyone in the entire World adopted it in the way I'd like to see it shocking

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 06:58:57 2020 No.16504465 >>16504038 >The root of capitalism is the employee, employer relationship. Which benefits both. Employers and employees have existed forever.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 07:01:20 2020 No.16504472

>>16504102
>What I mean is that he made the argument when there is a minimum wage the boss will try to go against it and there is a possibility that he will succeed in abolishing it. So we should not only introduce a minimum wage but also take away the power of the boss to take it away, so everyone will be on a level playing field.

If your job doesn’t pay enough, look for another one.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 07:02:28 2020 No.16504476

>>16504113
>The problem with Marxists, is that they assume atheism is objectively better way of being, and reduce everything down to a historical materialism.

Marxists literally don’t have souls. Atheists are more likely to commit suicide and more likely to be unhappy, and atheists in no country have replacement level or higher birthrates.
It’s a religion of death and decay,

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 07:02:53 2020 No.16504478 File: 622 KB, 600x1373, 26427f86b2544303ed8624ab4c09214e8b95dd71.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16504465

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 07:07:27 2020 No.16504491 >>16504428 >The west is blind to what happens in the rest of the world. Fuck other countries. The weak serve the strong and always will. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 07:09:37 2020 No.16504497 >>16504478 >nooo hiring people to do thing bad Lol

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 07:12:11 2020 No.16504503

>>16504365
Uber saved me during uni. It's great for the consumer. The whole public benefits. Many poor and lower middle class people use it in Brazil. They finally have an option which isn't taking the bus (which, in Brazil, is horrible, and also dangerous). The traditional cabs are simply inaccessible to the poor here: too expensive.
The drivers themselves use Uber when they are traveling rhrough another city or don't have their cars at hand. Also, Uber doesn't exploit them at all. They're free to leave if they want (unless by "exploiting" you mean it in the strictly Marxist definition, in which case I don't care, nor do they).

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 07:39:34 2020 No.16504584
File: 47 KB, 422x403, russell-on-marx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16504476
Marxism is a heavily Christian doctrine, despite being atheistic. Bertrand Russell had noticed this, although his scheme is too small. Many other parallels can be traced:

Garden of Eden : Primitive communism (i.e. golden age myth)
Evil Spirit/Devil : Self-interest
The Apple : Private property
The Fall : Beginning of agricultural society
Periods of Captivity in Egypt, Babylon etc. : Economic history before capitalism (slavery, serfdom etc.)
Rise of Rome / John the Baptist : Industrial Revolution and capitalism
Jesus Christ : Karl Marx
The Apostles : Engels / Marxist philosophers
The Gospels : Das Kapital
The Church : The Party
Missionary movement : Marxist education
Missionary internationalism : Communist internationalism
Conversion: When you become a Marxist / party member
The martyrs : Gramsci and others
The sacred shrines and relics: Lenin's Mummy etc.
Festivities : Worker's Day, parades etc.
The Anti-Pope: Trotsky and other dissidents
The confusion before the Final Judgement : Late stage capitalism, accentuation of its "contradictions"
The Final Judgement : Communist revolution
Hell : Punishment of the capitalists
Purgatory : Transitory state between the revolution and "real communism", in which the remaining sins are slowly washed away as the system gradually attains perfection
Paradise : the completion of the process, i.e., perfect communism

"The first will be the last, and the last will be the first" : "The rich will be gulag'd, and the poor will be rich"

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 07:49:35 2020 No.16504600 >>16504584 I agree. Both are slave morality

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 07:56:32 2020 No.16504623 >>16504600 Indeed.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 08:02:49 2020 No.16504644

>>16504478
I work in a big factory, let me tell you, 9 out of 10 people are completely incompetent, this includes both the factory and the office, in every place I worked I usually have this old guy who makes everything work, worthless management except for this one guy who genuinely knows what he's doing.

Communism says we should kick out the smart guy and that one guy in management who know how things work and let the rabble take over. No thank you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 08:24:57 2020 No.16504719 >>16502994 Finally read through that copy+pasted list of books some 17 year-old Marxist-Leninist on Twitter told me to read before blocking me, and wow they were right, I was wrong about everything I'm sorry for doubting you @bonghits4lenin69

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 08:40:00 2020 No.16504760

>>16504352
The average work week in the US had already fallen to 39 hours when the 40 hour work week was passed into law. This is also before labor unions were given any federal protections and they were in fact often acted against using anti trust legislation.
>>16504428
Hooooly fuck does this video already piss me off from the outset. Which U.S. states have the highest levels of homelessness per capita? New York and California. The rampant homelessness is caused by zoning laws and regulations on what kind of housing can be built.
Wait, does this person think you can't get emergency care in America if you don't have enough money? They're literally obligated to treat you, you'll just end up with debt by the end of it. The countries with more deaths associated with it are ones with single payer healthcare. They save money via monopsony but this also reduces quality of care.
God, socialists are so annoying. They only know how to complain about the current system while having a vague idea of a fantasy world that would be better. And you people can't even agree on what kind of world that would be or how to get there. From the outside it just looks like a religion with a bunch of different sects.
>>16504476
>Atheists are more likely to commit suicide and more likely to be unhappy,
Actually, total bullshit. The key to being happy is to not be an indecisive fuck.
>Mental health and counseling. Of the 31 psychology articles, articles that contained content focused on mental health topics (dimensions of psychological
well-being and distress) and counseling psychology topics (counseling, therapy, and training) are explored in further detail in Table 9. Regarding mental
health and atheism, general trends in the studies suggest that there is not a
clear link between atheism and mental health. Most of the empirical studies
that included both atheist and R/S participants found no group differences in
dimensions of psychological well-being or distress (e.g., Baker & Cruickshank, 2009; Caldwell-Harris, Wilson, LoTempio, & Beit-Hallahmi, 2011;
Horning, Davis, Stirrat, & Cornwell, 2011; Toburen & Meier, 2010;
Tonigan, Miller, & Schermer, 2002). Three studies found evidence of a curvilinear relationship between certainty of beliefs (R/S or atheist) and dimensions of psychological well-being, such that very religious and atheist
individuals fare better than people who are less certain of their religious
beliefs, are spiritual but not religious, or are agnostic (Galen, 2009; Galen &
Kloet, 2011; Mochon, Norton, & Ariely, 2011).
https://www.apa.org/education/ce/arrantly-absent.pdf
I'm also going to venture to guess that any correlation between atheism and low birth rates has to do with the confounding variable of atheists tending to live in developed first world countries, with probably higher than average earnings within the country.
>>16504478
A co-op would still contract workers to do the things mentioned in the edit. Guess co-ops can also exploit workers.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 08:44:23 2020 No.16504774

>>16504760
>Actually, total bullshit.

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/

> I'm also going to venture to guess that any correlation between atheism and low birth rates has to do with the confounding variable of atheists tending to live in developed first world countries, with probably higher than average earnings within the country.

Nope. Atheists have lower birthrates than their peers in first world nations, because they’re soulless, depressed, pathetic worms filled with ennui who usually believe in vile evils like abortion.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 08:51:51 2020 No.16504798

>>16504774
>https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303
>https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/
The methods in both of these studies would be flawed to use to make an inference regarding the atheistic population. They didn't ask people if they were atheist but asked them if they had a religious affiliation. The study I linked was a systematic review of the evidence and found 3 studies indicating that the conviction of one's beliefs is correlated with greater life satisfaction. I.e., if you're very religious and confident in your belief, you'll be relatively happy. If you're an atheist and very confident in your believe, there's no statistical evidence that you'll be unhappy. But if you're, say, a christian with questions or an on the fence agnostic, you'll be more likely to suffer from mental health problems.
>Nope. Atheists have lower birthrates than their peers in first world nations
Cool, feel free to show me the statistical evidence that demonstrates this by also controlling for income.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 08:54:38 2020 No.16504805 File: 1.05 MB, 3150x1280, the great debate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16502568 This

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 10:47:02 2020 No.16505222 >>16503235 They want to make it 3$ a day.So they make more profit.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 11:36:22 2020 No.16505464
File: 378 KB, 750x705, 1-24.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16504113

That is the biggest issue I have with Marxism, it has no spiritual or aesthetic concerns. Despite history and psychology research clearly showing that man has spiritual and aesthetic needs.

My biggest problem with Fascism however is the militarism, imperialism, and dictatorship government structure. Especially in the 21st century, and how technology can be used to control and subvert dissent, a Fascist state could easily become another North Korea. All anyone needs to do is read up on Edward Snowden's release documents, and what China is doing regarding monitoring social media, recognition and thermal camera tech, etc. If 'bad apples' get into power, with no separation of the branches of government another North Korea is inevitable. Any rebellion would not have the tech or capital to go up against the Goliath of a Technocratic Fascist state. I've never read/heard a Fascist address how a Technocratic Fascist state wouldn't descend into a North Korea style state.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 11:41:45 2020 No.16505484 >>16503628 Capitalists aren't on your side bro, stop refering to them as "we". Capitalism degrades traditional culture just as much as Communism, and it is even more of a threat today because of it's prevalence. t. NatSoc dude

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 11:52:11 2020 No.16505541 >>16504068 >gold mining cooperative Market Socialism isn't Marxist, Market Socialism can actually work lol.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 12:07:20 2020 No.16505616

>>16504644
If you want meritocracy Capitalism certainly won't give it to you as indicated by your post. Of everything worth criticizing the soviet union for they had it right when their scientists and great artists (high iq population) were actually paid what they're worth instead of whatever peanuts they get under capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 12:12:19 2020 No.16505635 >>16505464 China and NK are based don't believe in all the propaganda. Also all that stuff you hear about China monitoring their citizens is basically what all the Western countries already do except the West is less transparent.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 12:19:50 2020 No.16505680

>>16504644
communism says the smart guy and the guy in management should be compensated way more because what they contribute is called LABOUR. Labour includes strategic planning and investment. What shouldn't be compensated is OWNERSHIP, because that contributes precisely nothing to any enterprise. Capitalism rewards ownership first and foremost; labour gets paid the lowest amount that the market will allow. This is one of the principle contradictions of capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 13:59:42 2020 No.16506190 >>16504644 My mom was one of the smart guys who teachesd everyone. Guess what happened in capitalism 3 years before retiring. She got fired on a monday, after she worked on her own time weekends. Would never happen in communism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 14:33:19 2020 No.16506362 File: 920 KB, 720x404, 1601516435108-tv.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16505635 China is a nightmarish hellscape

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 14:34:54 2020 No.16506368 econ is astrology for pseuds complete and utter meme field

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 14:47:58 2020 No.16506429 >>16502994 >Within Marxist theory

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 14:59:35 2020 No.16506489

>>16504248
Ideological goals dont care about your material conditions, people dont live in order to reach some arbitrary value of production, even if you could establish worldwide communism today people wouldnt spend the rest of their lives jerking themselves off the thought of a classless society, they would divide themselves in smallers societies based around their ideological goals
Its like the grandfather paradox, by creating a world where material conditions are equal, people wont care about materialism anymore

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 15:02:09 2020 No.16506506 >>16502448 Wolff is a fucking hack. I can’t sit through any of his speeches. He’s a pompous asshole. Ha-Joon Chang is far better.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 15:24:49 2020 No.16506674

>>16504114
r u fucking retarded?
the model of feudalism came about due to the diocletianic reforms which happened as a way to counter inflation and militarize the state
good try omitting absolute monarchies from the equation so you dont have to admit the class struggle tree went backwards, discrediting the theory that this proccess is linear rather than circular
eat shit marxfag

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 15:43:15 2020 No.16506797

>>16506674
>it went backwards
yes and the USSR also went back to capitalism, but that doesn't mean that in general this trend of progression is true.
The capitalists are a wealthy majority while the workers a poor majority, why do workers not break free of this exploitation? Because they lack class consciousness. If the workers did decide they had enough, they could overthrow their masters. It happened time and time again.
Will it happen again? We shall see, the wageslave in the modern western world lives in a relatively comfortable state. Some of the slave owners in the past also treated their slaves well, and those slaves were less likely to take arms than those who suffered.
Maybe Marx was a bit optimistic but what he showed is fundamentally true, I don't think you should see it as a deterministic prediction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 15:53:28 2020 No.16506872 >>16506368 This

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 16:26:29 2020 No.16507051

>>16506797
>yes and the USSR also went back to capitalism, but that doesn't mean that in general this trend of progression is true.
Except it WAS the trend, atleast in regards to the west, feudal monarchies turning into absolutist ones
>The capitalists are a wealthy majority while the workers a poor majority, why do workers not break free of this exploitation?
Because of automation, and not in the way you think, the need for capitalist to pay workers so they can participate in the economy is null when you can already have machines producing all goods and cappies consuming them, eventually you will reach a stage of production where you wont need worker participation in the economy, at that point all they are is a threat to the cappies rule, what comes next should be obvious: Mechanized Classicide, and its gonna be fucking awesome.
>Will it happen again?
A revolution? probably; a successfull revolution? no, by that time the workers will become too expendable for the cappies not to just mow them down
GG NO RE

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 16:56:11 2020 No.16507204

Communism is impractical because it assumes itself to be a perfect answer, it leaves no room for error. When there can be no room for error there is no room for progress. So whenever a problem occurs in a communist society that is outside its bounds of control it crumbles because it's source of power is top down and has no place of progress. It will fail as it always has

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 17:36:59 2020 No.16507376 >>16502718 Make an argument against Marxist economics

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 17:43:11 2020 No.16507408 >>16507376 Maybe the fact that literally no modern economists take it seriously. The only people who think it’s legitimate are from Internet fringe groups. Same goes for ancaps.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 17:48:25 2020 No.16507436 >>16502448 Wolff, not because I hold him in high regard, but because Sowell is an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 17:55:31 2020 No.16507491 >> debate marxists? I have money to make.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 17:59:40 2020 No.16507518 >>16507376 It has made no verified, novel, falsifiable predictions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 17:59:49 2020 No.16507520 >>16504760 The 40 hour work week was passed into law in 1940 in the US. Marx was writing in the 1860s regarding factories in England. Maybe try and understand what we are talking about before putting your foot in your mouth

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 18:08:17 2020 No.16507563 >>16503023 >wuh oh, society isn't perfect. time to 180 all the way to the extreme. you are indoctrinated.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 18:12:05 2020 No.16507585 >>16502448 I'll take the based black man

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 18:12:19 2020 No.16507588 >>16507520 Have any proof that Marx caused the average work week to fall to 39 hours via his intellectual influence? Again, it fell without government action. You don't have to be a socialist to think that working 16 hours a day sucks.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 18:18:04 2020 No.16507625 >>16507408 Who cares about the field of economics? There is ethics and politics which economists don't deal with it.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 18:29:32 2020 No.16507714

>>16507625
Marxism is also supposed to be independent of ethics and should actually be apathetic to politics. On ethics, because it purports to be a purely descriptive account of the progression of history and the economy. On politics, because Marx himself didn't think reform would be what lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Also omegalul on thinking economics is irrelevant to ethics or politics merely by being descriptive. You might as well call physics irrelevant to engineering because physics doesn't tell you what to value in a design but only what the consequences of a design is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 18:33:54 2020 No.16507745 >>16502994 Some of the best trolling I've seen. You had me for a minute though

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 18:36:09 2020 No.16507774 >>16505464 No Fascist will respond. :-(

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 18:54:18 2020 No.16507889 >>16505464 authoritarian governments are antithetical to liberty which 90% of westerners hold dear, and fascism would be equally impeding in this regard. nothing surprising

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 19:01:33 2020 No.16507942 >>16507408 Make an argument that isn't an appeal to authority.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 19:03:07 2020 No.16507958

>>16507588
He directly advocated for workers to band together and demand better working conditions and then workers banded together and demanded better working conditions and got them (slowly over several decades which DID include government attempts throughout the 1800s which were opposed at every step by capitalists who wanted to continue exploiting workers and used the influence of their capital to inhibit government from effectively clamping down on overworking of employees).

The bottom line is that Marx's criticisms of the capitalist system were and largely still are accurate. Capital endlessly seeks to grow itself and almost entirely does this through the exploitation of workers, and when given enough power, extracts the maximum labor while repaying the bare minimum to keep the worker from dying too early. Bringing this sharply into the public consciousness was necessary before any real change could be achieved, and if you look at the history of the 8 hour work day/40 hour work week, it was always largely an effort by socialists and Marxists to organize labor and achieve better conditions

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 19:05:56 2020 No.16507979 >>16502517 He's lucid, and he filters out all of the wrong supply side stuff in Marx as well as the unreasonable cry for revolution as the only means of doing anything

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 19:06:16 2020 No.16507982 >>16502448 Sowell would win, but that's because Wolff isn't very good. Fairer would be something like Sowell vs. Roemer, or Sowell vs. Kliman.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 19:06:22 2020 No.16507983

>>16507714
We are talking about 21st century Marxism like the one Richard Wolff talks about. Also how would something like a communist revolution be independent of ethics and politics?

>Also omegalul on thinking economics is irrelevant to ethics or politics merely by being descriptive.
Is it though? Show me all the economists who are talking about ethical theory lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 19:07:54 2020 No.16507992 >>16507408 >t. browses r/neoliberal

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 19:58:45 2020 No.16508309

>>16502517
>since I kinda want to get into Marxism but I don't want to read thousands of pages of Capital
>I want to be muscular, but i don't want to go to the gym.

>Is Wolffs writing good?
Don't know about his writtings, but he seems to be a reformist. Meaning, he seems to want to reform Capitalism, not abolish it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:00:31 2020 No.16508317 >>16502875 "A cure for Capitalism" That's what i'm talking about. You don't cure Capitalism. You abolish it.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:00:43 2020 No.16508322

>>16507983
Doesn't make sense to call yourself a Marxist while rejecting historical materialism. You're a socialist, sure, but your ideology isn't rooted in Marxism if you give ethical meaning to things like surplus value. Marx's contribution to socialist thought wasn't ethical in nature but a pure description of material and class relations within capitalism, how it leads to contradictions, and how those contradictions imply that capitalism is inherently unstable and will eventually collapse. This is the essence of Marxist thought and stripping it away reduces Marx to nothing but opinion. "Yuck, I don't like surplus value extraction." K who cares?
On politics, Marxism implies the inevitable collapse on capitalism so engaging in electoral politics doesn't do anything to push toward socialism.
>Is it though? Show me all the economists who are talking about ethical theory lol
Again, this is like saying what a physicist has to say about how the world works is irrelevant because how the world works doesn't directly tell you what goals you should have when you design something. The fact that economists can talk about how the economy works and the consequences of a given policy while leaving their ethics and politics out of it is a good thing and is how any social science should operate. But even with that, sure, economists give their views on how the economy ought to be all the time, which would be based on their ethical views of what society should prioritize and on their view of the consequences of a given policy set.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:07:43 2020 No.16508366

>>16508322
>Doesn't make sense to call yourself a Marxist while rejecting historical materialism. You're a socialist, sure, but your ideology isn't rooted in Marxism if you give ethical meaning to things like surplus value. Marx's contribution to socialist thought wasn't ethical in nature but a pure description of material and class relations within capitalism, how it leads to contradictions, and how those contradictions imply that capitalism is inherently unstable and will eventually collapse. This is the essence of Marxist thought and stripping it away reduces Marx to nothing but opinion. "Yuck, I don't like surplus value extraction." K who cares?
What does that have this have to do with entirely stripping away the concept of ethics in a society?
>On politics, Marxism implies the inevitable collapse on capitalism so engaging in electoral politics doesn't do anything to push toward socialism.
Revolution counts as politics no?
>But even with that, sure, economists give their views on how the economy ought to be all the time, which would be based on their ethical views of what society should prioritize and on their view of the consequences of a given policy set.
Where? I know a couple of people that try to blend the two but as a whole economists don't really write about ethical philosophy or politics to a point where we should be taking our ideas from them on how society should be ran. They have their place but don't act like they're God's who understand perfectly how every aspect of the world should be ran. You don't go to an economist when you wanna understand whether something is ethical.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sun Oct 4 20:10:01 2020 No.16508388 File: 57 KB, 287x428, 09B9F13A-3249-4CB9-8480-3365D70B4586.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16508317 Well, it’s not “A Cure to Mend Capitalism Back to Health” It’s a way to poison it. A small dose of what Herod prescribes

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:11:34 2020 No.16508405 >>16506362 that's South Korea https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-31602247

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:12:21 2020 No.16508412

>>16505464
>That is the biggest issue I have with Marxism, it has no spiritual or aesthetic concerns.
Way more than you think. Read the thesis on feuerbach, or on the jewish question.
Marx think Christianity, is the essence of the emancipated man. Not institutionalized christianity, or christianity put into a state (state religion), because it is detached from the community, but the very core principle of christianity, are the essence of the emancipated man.
>If 'bad apples' get into power, with no separation of the branches of government another North Korea is inevitable.
There is no "bad apples". History follow the development of productive forces. It has nothing to do with bad apples. The future is necessary techno-surveillance. The only way out is to abolish Capitalism, and class based society. Indeed, who will survey who in a classless society? This, or a natural collapse of Capitalism, due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:13:20 2020 No.16508418 >>16508388 Butterfly what have you been doing in your neighborhood to create an association of democratic autonomous neighborhoods?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:14:41 2020 No.16508427 >>16508418 Nothing, all communists do is jerk around on the internet, fuck em

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:16:08 2020 No.16508440 >>16508427 I know this. It's nothing more than a fashion statement. I ask her this and she never responds because it's obvious she doesn't give a shit about anything she says.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:19:51 2020 No.16508475 >>16508427 Which is different than fascist, who have seen all Jordan Peterson videos, Ben shapiro's, and all the remaining footages of Jacob Hitler.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:22:02 2020 No.16508491 >>16508475 Yeah, online teenage political radicals are faggots, what's your point?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:27:15 2020 No.16508519 >>16508475 Also lul at ben Shapiro and Peterson being fascists, grow up

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sun Oct 4 20:29:33 2020 No.16508529 >>16508418 How many charismatic leader types do you think frequent 4chan? I’m a meek nobody, but I am formulating plans. People are moving in this direction, and I want to join them at some point, yes. What business is it of yours?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:31:39 2020 No.16508541 >>16502448 >Who would win? Wolff, obviously. Marx is right.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:32:42 2020 No.16508545 >>16508529 >I've done nothing, there is nothing on my horizon Brave

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:38:09 2020 No.16508574

>>16508491
The only way for you fascist to have fascism, would be to have fascism compatible with mass immigration. Late stage Capitalism likes mass immigration, because it has to counter the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. So, in order to have your roman salute, your Swatiskas, your goose-stepping and your Hugo Boss costumes, you'll have to compromize on mass immigration. But perhaps, all you want, are the costumes and the flags? In this case, no doubt something can be arranged by the Capitalists.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sun Oct 4 20:39:54 2020 No.16508583 >>16508545 There is something on the horizon. I hope to be a part of it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:40:34 2020 No.16508586 >>16508574 I'm not a fascist you commie schizo >rate of profit to fall You're an embarrassing person

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:42:42 2020 No.16508594 >>16508529 So you need to be a charismatic leader to start? Sounds counter to the ideas of the book that it's something anyone can do.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:43:02 2020 No.16508595 >>16506797 How is this development natural to the flow of history if there needs to be deliberate and altering attempts to instill this “class consciousness”

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:43:36 2020 No.16508598 >>16508586 >>rate of profit to fall >You're an embarrassing person At least i won't get embarrassed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:43:44 2020 No.16508599 >>16508583 >There is something on the horizon. I hope to be a part of it. What is it?

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sun Oct 4 20:44:31 2020 No.16508603 >>16508594 Who are you? What motivates this seemingly smarmy pep talk?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:45:26 2020 No.16508612 >>16507520 >the labour movement wouldn’t exist without Marx

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sun Oct 4 20:46:06 2020 No.16508615 >>16508599 Simply put, a labor movement is trying to grow. This is why the woke/race war was put on to distract everyone

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:46:48 2020 No.16508620

>>16508603
I'm just saying if you are a socialist who wants to create democratic autonomous neighborhoods you should actually try to create them. The entire point of the book is that it's not just theory but something people can actually do but you aren't doing. What's the point otherwise? To say it would be a nice idea?

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:48:31 2020 No.16508632

>>16506797
>We shall see, the wageslave in the modern western world lives in a relatively comfortable state.
Depends who, and where. See yellow jackets.
>I don't think you should see it as a deterministic prediction.
The tendency of the rate of profit is deterministic. That's literally what the covid circus is about, hide it, destroy the economy, and restart on the ruins. Indeed, you can reboot profit by destroying economical sectors, and rebooting them. But each time, profit is lower, until the game is over.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:49:04 2020 No.16508638

>>16508615
You don't think you could help the labor movement by creating an democratic autonomous neighborhood? It's not hard. Unless you have severe autism don't use being meek as an excuse. You spend your entire day posting on this board it wouldn't be hard to take an hour of your day and work on it.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:50:25 2020 No.16508643

>>16508574
This has to be the dumbest post I’ve seen on this board. Mass immigration is the main issue the modern far right stands against and I don’t think they would mind letting capitalism collapse if it meant stopping the inevitable process of capitalist globalization.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:51:52 2020 No.16508653 >>16503235 it used to be 100% lived on less than $2 a day, look how capitalism has made people thrive

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:53:08 2020 No.16508666

>>16508643
I think they would totally mind. The entrepeneur and Capitalist interest in the fascist party would push toward compromize on mass immigration. If Capitalism collapse, without any intelligence structure to replace it, which the fascist don't have, because they expressely rely on Capitalism, they would have no other choice but to have a pro-Capitalist fascism. But it still would it cool, swatiskas, cool uniforms, r-right? We can still LARP!

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:53:52 2020 No.16508669

>>16508615
>Simply put, a labor movement is trying to grow. This is why the woke/race war was put on to distract everyone
People will hate each other of petty garbage like race, religion etc. regardless of muh material conditions. Have you ever been outside America? If anything the system is trying its hardest to keep people from devolving into tribalism with its new emphasis on cosmopolitanism

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Sun Oct 4 20:54:00 2020 No.16508672 File: 3.15 MB, 828x480, 2A65452B-2CC8-48ED-84D2-18C6FA865F64.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16508638 Okay. Will do.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 20:55:44 2020 No.16508685

>>16508666
> I think they would totally mind. The entrepeneur and Capitalist interest in the fascist party would push toward compromize on mass immigration
No. They wouldn’t. This isn’t the 20s anymore and its antithetical to capital’s interests to cooperate with a bunch of apocalyptic Siegetards

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 21:01:11 2020 No.16508722 >>16508685 That's what i said. He said fascist wouldn't mind Capitalism collapse, i said they would (mind). More exactly Capitalists, who have the real power, won't tolerate to a a no mass immigration politic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 21:02:59 2020 No.16508732 >>16507204 retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 21:35:37 2020 No.16508947 >>16502995 They don’t exist dr, every time they try to appear they kill 100 million people, disappear and then blame other people for their revolutionary actions! Please doctor help me! These commies keep showing up and blaming other people!

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 21:53:13 2020 No.16509041 >>16502448 Thomas Sowell doesn't understand economics. All he understands is how to repeat the cliche of how X government policy actually achieves the opposite of what it intends, and that neoliberalism isn't that bad.

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 21:53:27 2020 No.16509043

>>16503347
Cuba and Laos both have hierarchy and by many modern communist own teachings, and in order to dodge responsibility for the genocides in China and Russia, claim that any nation still with hierarchy is not yet communist.

So there are no communist nations

Anonymous Sun Oct 4 21:54:15 2020 No.16509048

>>16508947
>Bolsheviks around 1917: let's put the means of production into the State, declare our bolshevik party a single party, and kill all the opponents (Konstaadt rebellion). We will call it communism.
>-B-but Komrad, people will know it' really not communism.
>-Don't worry, Komrad. We will use a hammer and sickle flag, with red colors, and call it communism. The goyims will believe us.
>Okay Komrad, it you say so...
>A hundred year later, somewhere on the far right of the internet: COMMUNISM KILLED 100 MILLION PEOPLE.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 4 22:13:54 2020 No.16509170 >>16508612 >Marx had no impact on the labor movement Is that the line you're going with?

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:27:04 2020 No.16509813

>>16507958
There's a bit of a post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning going on here. Essentially you're saying that because Marx advocated for workers to band together, workers banded together. Because workers banded together, better working conditions were won. I can question both of these assumptions quite easily. Why can't it be that it was the material conditions that workers faced that motivated them to collectively bargain for better treatment? You may, at this point, mention that many of the leaders of the labor movement were socialists, but that doesn't prove that Marxist thought is what caused unions to form in the first place. In fact, this is in direct opposition to Marxist theories of history. Change does not happen in Marxism because an ideologue had rationally argued for societal change. It happens because the material conditions are rife with contradictions, making it subject to instability. Did Marxists *cause* labor unions to form? Or did Marxists just take charge of labor unions that would have inevitably formed anyway because they had an ideology that happened to suit the material interests of the people at the time? In absence of Marxism, why wouldn't some other political ideology have taken center stage? Social liberals like Leonard Hobhouse justified labor unions in their writings, so perhaps they would have played a bigger role in things. The common trade unionist didn't give a damn about Marxism and only saw it, at best, as an expedient philosophy on which to hang their material interests on.
And as for whether it was unofficial organized labor that brought about the change, how did you determine that? Organized labor would have represented a slim majority of the workforce. And there are alternative mechanisms that would explain the change. For example, why couldn't it have been a simple result of people bartering for better working conditions between employers? You don't have to be a Marxist to want to work less hours, so you'll work for an employer who demands less if they're available. If enough people want this, it'll create a downward pressure on the work week with employers having to deal with the massive turn over.

>almost entirely does this through the exploitation of workers
The Marxist definition of exploitation is an abuse of language, but sure, by Marxist definitions, workers are inherently exploited under capitalism, and there were bad working conditions for American workers at a point in time.
>extracts the maximum labor while repaying the bare minimum to keep the worker from dying too early
And if labor is given too much power, they'll do the bare minimum of work while extracting the maximum amount of pay. Capitalism lets conflicting interests play out until things reach an equilibrium where all interests meet somewhere in between.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:29:02 2020 No.16509829 >>16509813 organized labor would have represented a slim minority of the workforce*

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:31:21 2020 No.16509838

>>16509813
>Capitalism lets conflicting interests play out until things reach an equilibrium where all interests meet somewhere in between.
You are aware of the growing disparity in wealth which is causing the top tiny percentage of the wealthy to own more than the bottom half of the population, yes? You can't possible believe what you just posted in regard to an equilibrium

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:34:14 2020 No.16509854 >>16508595 because the proliferation of ideas is natural

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:37:22 2020 No.16509868

>>16509838
There's nothing inherently wrong with inequality. A better metric to judge society by is standard of living. Capitalists become rich by operating or investing in businesses that produce goods and services at the best quality for the lowest price.This ultimately benefits the bottom rung of society.
And yes, I do. The dreaded guilded age was also a period with massive explosions in American wages. I believe in supply and demand and that it applies in labor markets as much as it applies in product markets.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:39:55 2020 No.16509881 >>16509838 This a state sanctioned increase in disparity. Funny how disparity really started to baloon when government started to subsidize the poor.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:46:04 2020 No.16509909

>>16509868
You used the word "equilibrium" which does not apply when owned wealth (especially property) is being consolidated into fewer and fewer hands while more and more people are forced into serf-like conditions where they can only rent.

And none of this is to mention the double standard in regard to the law. JP Morgan Chase just admitted to 8+ years of market manipulation where tens of billions (probably more) were made in profit and they only paid a fraction of that in fines by the law. For the average person, legal punishments are always much higher than the gains were made in the criminal enterprise.

There is a massive imbalance in the US, just look at union membership levels which declined 50% from 1983 to 2016. Capital has growing power over the individual especially with schemes like gig work, contract work, ect. where they can literally skirt labor laws and deprive workers of benefits they should be getting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:47:05 2020 No.16509916 >>16509881 Who controls the government, the poor or the rich?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:47:59 2020 No.16509921 File: 421 KB, 671x811, 13476176.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:52:31 2020 No.16509947

>>16509868
>Capitalists become rich by operating or investing in businesses that produce goods and services at the best quality for the lowest price.This ultimately benefits the bottom rung of society.
The bottom rung of society consists in very many cases of the people who are paid less, worked harder or have their jobs shipped overseas to countries where people can be paid less or worked harder, in order to achieve that "lowest price". One man's expenses are another man's income.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:54:15 2020 No.16509958 >>16509947 >One man's expenses are another man's income. Doesn't this ignore productivity

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:54:51 2020 No.16509963 >>16509958 >Doesn't this ignore productivity Nope, I already said "worked harder".

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:56:51 2020 No.16509974

>>16508643
>Mass immigration is the main issue the modern far right stands against and I don’t think they would mind letting capitalism collapse if it meant stopping the inevitable process of capitalist globalization.
This is why we're not getting anywhere. Many Non-white countries have large-scale immigration of "guest workers" but don't have problems (like all the oil sheikdoms, Israel, Singapore etc.) because they don't naturalize any of those people, because they aren't Democracies in the Western sense or have a special exception (Jews as special historical victims get an exemption from the morality police). It would be rather easy to separate citizenship/nationhood from access to the welfare state or public services but we're unwilling to do this for moral reasons.

In KSA foreign workers and oil money subsidize you so that you can live off welfare and go to camel races all day. In USA you work to subsidize foreigners who do farm labor (on farms you're already paying to subsidize!) who then get naturalized to vote for more subsidies for themselves. DEMOCRACY IS THE PROBLEM.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:58:36 2020 No.16509984

>>16509909
It completely applies. Labor markets are not special. You can analyze labor time as commodity that the worker is selling in return for a wage, and it can be analyzed just like any other market. An equilibrium wage will result in a given occupation as workers choose between employers who offer wages, working conditions and benefits and as employers choose between workers willing to work for different wages, working conditions and benefits.
>>16509916
>>16504078
While it's true that the rich have a disproportionate influence, the idea that the government bows down to the demands of whatever the richest among us want is a caricature.
>>16509947
Free trade is a net benefit to society.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 00:58:52 2020 No.16509986 >>16509958 productivity changes the amount of surplus labor the capitalist can extract, it doesn't change how much the worker is paid

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 01:00:47 2020 No.16510006 >>16509984 Right, so the influx of cheap labor via globalization has decimated the home labor market, effectively screwing over workers here

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 01:04:15 2020 No.16510027 >>16509868 >Utilitarianism ok dumbass

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 01:06:56 2020 No.16510036

>>16509984
Not everyone can eat "net benefit". If some people are claiming a much larger share of the gains from free trade, and some are claiming a much larger share of the costs, society still has a problem to be solved, the fact that "overall" society has benefited is small comfort. Manufacturing is a big example of that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 01:09:50 2020 No.16510063 >>16510036 this

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 01:37:19 2020 No.16510176

>>16510006
If you own an iPhone, some of the things that came together create it may have gone something like follows: the design and innovation is American, rare earth minerals were mined from mongolia, the LCD panel came from Japan, chips made in Taiwan, the gyroscope used the track your phone’s orientation made in Switzerland, assembled in China, shipped to you, and at a price that is far more affordable than it would be otherwise. Everything you own at the price you do is due to free trade, from your iPhone to your pencil. Free trade net benefits society because trade isn’t a zero sum game: countries can produce things at a comparative advantage, regardless of their absolute productivity, and net increase the productivity of the global economy. Protectionism protects wages for a few industries to the detriment of the many.
>>16510036
Manufacturing died in the U.S. largely due to technology shocks, not due to trade. People are never going to work at assembly lines “I love Lucy” style ever again. If it came back it would do so largely as skilled labor.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 01:40:58 2020 No.16510193 >>16510176 I would rather have a job that pays enough for me to afford to buy a house than be able to buy an iPhone while being locked into rent

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 01:41:38 2020 No.16510195

>>16510176
>Manufacturing died in the U.S. largely due to technology shocks, not due to trade.
Given the number of our consumer electronics, plastic items, appliances, etc. built oversees in sweatshop conditions, I'm skeptical of that idea. Automation can reduce the amount of labor needed, but in what cases is that labor even being done here?

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 01:45:48 2020 No.16510213

>>16510193
And rent would be far more affordable if the housing market was deregulated. Here here.
>>16510195
You're making the point yourself. The labor costs overseas are so low that to reproduce the same item at a similar cost domestically, you'd have to use less workers more efficiently, which means taking advantage of automation as best you can.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 01:47:54 2020 No.16510218

>>16510213
>And rent would be far more affordable if the housing market was deregulated
Deflecting instead of addressing the connection between outsourced manufacturing and local wages? I guess that proves the weakness of your position on opposing protectionism

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 01:49:49 2020 No.16510226

>>16510218
Already addressed. The higher wages that result out of protection come at a cost to the wages of society at large through higher prices. Few workers benefit while a majority do not. If you want to complain about rent specifically, I'd blame domestic regulations, not free trade.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 01:52:55 2020 No.16510240

>>16510213
>The labor costs overseas are so low that to reproduce the same item at a similar cost domestically, you'd have to use less workers more efficiently, which means taking advantage of automation as best you can.
Yes, because of labor laws in those other countries. You're making the opposite of the point you thought you were making. It's not technology shocks overall, it's "free trade" between one country which instituted protections for workers and minimum wage laws in order to ensure good employment, and another that didn't. The results of this are so obvious and easy to predict that it's clear that it's the people who wanted to ship jobs oversees that pushed for this free trade idea in the first place. And then we get people who shill for these profiteers for free on an anonymous imageboard saying
>>16509984
It's a "net benefit" to society, just ignore that the rising tide actually hasn't raised all ships, and look at your shiny new iPhone!

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 01:55:45 2020 No.16510250 >>16510226 You are disconnected from reality if you think the lowering of prices of non-essentials replaces the vanishing of the middle class

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:03:03 2020 No.16510282 >>16504491 If that is the case, do not whine if China is overtaking the West. The West deserves to be flooded by migrants if my argument is correctly in place. Eurabia it is.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:16:29 2020 No.16510344

>>16510240
>It's not technology shocks overall, it's "free trade" between one country which instituted protections for workers and minimum wage laws in order to ensure good employment, and another that didn't.
And this happened to the benefit of the society that engaged in the free trade. Instead of being forced to buy a car from America, you can get one imported from Japan at a lower cost, to the detriment of a few manufacturers in America and to the benefit of most workers who use automobiles as a form of transportation.
Also, minimum wage laws hurt unskilled laborers by denying them their most basic tool of negotiation: their ability to work at a lower rate, hurting their ability to get employed. Wages exploded in America long before we had minimum wage laws and are not necessary to grow the incomes of society.
>>16510250
Name the essential good and there's likely government hands all over it. Healthcare, housing, agriculture. Society would overall benefit if they were deregulated.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:21:34 2020 No.16510367

>>16510344
>And this happened to the benefit of the society that engaged in the free trade.
You just want to keep running back to your talking points about how it's net beneficial, while rushing past the
>to the detriment of a few manufacturers in America
thing?

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:29:32 2020 No.16510398

>>16510367
I'm not rushing past it. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You're essentially saying that a given industry should hold the rest of American workers hostage so they can enjoy higher wages at the detriment of everyone else. Sorry, I don't agree that anyone's that important.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:38:43 2020 No.16510438 >>16510344 At this point I'm beginning to think you're a troll. You're just too much of a caricature of those talking points

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:41:49 2020 No.16510454 >>16502448 The White one.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:45:19 2020 No.16510465

>>16510344
>Also, minimum wage laws hurt unskilled laborers by denying them their most basic tool of negotiation: their ability to work at a lower rate, hurting their ability to get employed.
So, you start this talking point in regard to wages earned, but end it by saying eliminating the min wage helps people get employment at even lower wages. We aren't concerned about multiplying slave wage jobs, we're interested in maintaining the high level of good income jobs we used to have

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:45:47 2020 No.16510467 >>16503051 Chomsky-Sowellism will save America.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:51:53 2020 No.16510483

>>16510398
If the "few" were those that could spare to have less because they were already fortunate, I could agree with that logic, but you're talking about blue collar workers who if they have less, might (and often do in reality) end up destitute. And you haven't actually proved that this state of affairs has actually improved the lives of the majority at the expense of a small amount of manufacturing workers, you've simply stated so. Almost as if you're just repeating a line of propaganda you've been told as justification for why free trade is good. Consider who might want you to think that, and what they're gaining from the arrangement.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:55:02 2020 No.16510491 >>16502448 Marxism (aka Hegelian tomfoolery in disguise) or ((Chicago economics))? Tough choice, but in the end any of those will do because both have supported or been used by bloody dictatorship, so both are fine.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:55:38 2020 No.16510495 >>16510367 >>16510483 I agree with your chain of posts so far, what do you think needs to be done to address the wealth disparity? UBI? More extreme protectionism? An overhauled tax code? All of the above?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:55:58 2020 No.16510496 >>16503636 Based

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 02:58:55 2020 No.16510501 >>16503636 >people who hold different politics than me are sub-humans you may just be retarded, anon

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:00:06 2020 No.16510504 >>16508529 >I cross the road when proleta- I mean scary men seem to be walking towards me but I believe in my philosophy! >seriously! >I have notebooks where I scribbled down my delusions where I contro- I mean democratically lead the proletariat!

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:04:10 2020 No.16510522 >>16502949 >implying I’m a wage slave I own my own business, retard. I made $97k last year.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:05:41 2020 No.16510527

>>16510495
Trade agreements with countries that have good environmental and workers' protections, so our workers can't be undercut would give us some of the benefits of expanded markets without as many of the costs to our workers. Combine that with a robust social safety net. UBI, job guarantee, subsidized retraining, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:07:26 2020 No.16510533 >>16505635 You've clearly not spend much time on liveleak If you wanna live under a regime where you can't speak out against the rulers be my guest

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:08:37 2020 No.16510538 >>16508732 Refute it nigger

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:08:47 2020 No.16510541 >>16510522 Ah, so you aren't a patient denying the cure but a disease denying it's end? Well then, prepare yourself for your end.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:08:50 2020 No.16510542 >>16510527 Yeah, I'm on that same wavelength

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:13:20 2020 No.16510561 >>16510522 How about this year?

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:14:15 2020 No.16510566

>>16510438
I gave up effort posting because I realize people itt will just bring up "muh X" and ask me to explain why an excess or lack of "X" is not the source of their woes ad infinitum. The idea, for example, that free trade isn't a zero-sum game and benefits both countries that engage in it is a well accepted fact in the field of economics. It's a position that's only controversial among the masses.
>>16510465
A lack of a minimum wage isn't a bad thing because while some people may choose to work for lower wages, the lower wages reduces labor costs which are passed on as savings to the consumer, who are largely workers. To whatever extent a minimum wage law benefits workers, it is at the detriment of others, who would be the worse off among us in society, because they are no longer able to effectively negotiate for a job as well. People make a lot of talk and bluster about capitalists being selfish, but the truth always comes out when you draw out the discussion: fuck the people who are worst off in society, fuck the majority of the population, I want to get mine.
>>16510483
And so the workers you're talking about would have the option of switching to one of the industries that benefited, possibly at a lower wage. But the thing is, that lower wage would have been even lower (in real terms) had the industry they were apart of previously had been kept artificially afloat. In other words, while I do feel some sympathy for the worker who lost their job, why is it that their job having high wages is more important than someone else having higher wages?
Also, I explained multiple times why free trade is a net benefit. Comparative advantage makes it so countries will always have something to produce, which will lead to an overall increase in productivity globally. If a given industry takes a hit domestically, it's because a different nation produces goods and services at a better price or better quality. But there's no argument to be made in counter to an incredulous stare.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:19:12 2020 No.16510577

>>16510566
Low skill workers don't "negotiate" their wage, they take whatever job is available in order to pay the bills. Also, major chains don't allow negotiations, they would rather hire someone new at starvation wages than negotiate to keep someone better. You sound like someone who has no idea what the living conditions of the working poor are

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:19:25 2020 No.16510580 >>16510566 >But the thing is, that lower wage would have been even lower (in real terms) had the industry they were apart of previously had been kept artificially afloat. What are you basing that on?

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:23:11 2020 No.16510595

>>16510566
>an overall increase in productivity globally
Why do you refuse to take into account WHO those benefits go to? The middle class in North America has been DESTROYED, but since the poor can now afford iPhones, it's all worth it? Get a grip, the elites are monopolizing those gains entirely to themselves and it's clear as day in multiple statistical metrics

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:27:29 2020 No.16510608 >>16510595 The fact that the guy's still on about "productivity" in an argument about what system is best for people's living conditions shows he doesn't know what "productivity" means.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:28:57 2020 No.16510615

>>16510577
>they take whatever job is available in order to pay the bills
They take whatever job they can at the best wage they can while searching around for the best offer. Yes, that's what I mean by negotiation.
Large businesses still have to take the rest of the labor market into account. If they fail to pay their workers as much as the competition, they'll experience massive turn over and lose workers to the competing employer.
>>16510580
Literally explained in the post if you read on.
>>16510595
In a well functioning free market economy, there's no basis for capitalists increasing their wealth other than by providing better goods and services than their competition. To whatever extent they're able to exert an unfair advantage that screws the majority, it's through rent seeking behavior.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:30:50 2020 No.16510624 File: 48 KB, 728x500, US_Wealth_Inequality_-_v2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16510615 Increase in productivity does not improve the wealth of the bottom 50% at all.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Mon Oct 5 03:31:18 2020 No.16510626 >>16510504 Dude. There are lots of scary men and they got all sorts of badges. Some of them might even frequent places like here. Just to check up on you little powder kegs

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:33:54 2020 No.16510636

>>16510615
>In a well functioning free market economy, there's no basis for capitalists increasing their wealth other than by providing better goods and services than their competition
Uh, yeah there is: providing the same quality of goods as their competition while reducing costs for production. That includes reducing material costs, working their employees harder, paying them less, etc. How are you still not getting this? Profits are not revenue, they're the difference between revenue and expenses. And so
>>16509947
>One man's expenses are another man's income.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:34:17 2020 No.16510638 >>16510626 Wait what? Is this a threat? Butterfly I was just joking, you didn't actually report me did you? Holy shit. Butterfly, call them off! I'm fucking sorry. Please, Butterfly, please! I'm sorry!

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:37:00 2020 No.16510648 >>16510615 >In a well functioning free market economy There is no well-functioning free market economy. The state always interferes massively in various ways. The state created both the currency and the nationwide market.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:38:18 2020 No.16510652
File: 28 KB, 1490x1224, Wealthv2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16510615
The capitalist system operates to consolidate the wealth of a nation into fewer and fewer hands. The longer it operates, the worse this monopolization of wealth becomes

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:38:44 2020 No.16510653

>>16510615
>there's no basis for capitalists increasing their wealth other than by providing better goods and services than their competition
Ensuring that there is no real competition by forming trusts is also a possible strategy, in practice it seems to be preferred when possible.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:41:17 2020 No.16510661

>>16510653
Adam Smith made it very clear, the interests of businesses is directly opposed to that of the general public. The public is served best by many options and competition, while businesses want less competition or competition who will contrive to inflate prices

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:41:47 2020 No.16510663 How many times are we gonna have threads like this? Half you faggots have probably already had these exact same arguments with the other half 100 times before This shit needs its own board

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:43:54 2020 No.16510674 >>16510661 Yes, it's amazing that so many people use Adam Smith to pretend like businesses are going to nicely self-organize into healthy competition if only we leave them alone.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:44:03 2020 No.16510675

>>16510653
This, and government is required to actively prevent them from doing this, and from forming monopolies. A laissez-faire policy doesn't lead to the most fair healthy competition, it leads to entrenched power hierarchies that control the entire economy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:44:28 2020 No.16510677 File: 895 KB, 480x382, WealthPercentiles.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16510663 I just like posting graphs

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:47:51 2020 No.16510697 >>16510677 Shut up faggot, you're part of the problem

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 03:50:10 2020 No.16510705 File: 856 KB, 2917x1590, IncomeDeciles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16510697 No

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 04:06:02 2020 No.16510759
File: 118 KB, 960x738, https___blogs-images.forbes.com_timworstall_files_2016_10_payproductivity.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16510624
Not my fault some people don't save and invest their money. Increases in productivity do however increase total compensation.
>>16510636
If a firm has a large profit margin, other firms can jump in and sacrifice some of their profit to steal market share from the competition. That's why it's imperative to keep barriers to entry in a market at a minimum.
>>16510648
And we would be better off with a smaller government. The less bureaucracy in a government, the less easy it is to manipulate to your advantage. Large government breeds corruption.
>>16510652
>muh inequality
Economics 101 pie argument. Try again. It doesn't matter if your share of the pie is smaller if the absolute size is bigger due to more material wealth being generated.
>>16510653
Fair enough. The creation of trusts can genuinely cause market failure and is one of the few forms of government intervention I'm fine with.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 04:12:09 2020 No.16510785

>>16510759
>nd we would be better off with a smaller government.
Debatable, but the root of the problem is more fundamental. The problem is using market/governement language as a framework for everything. And here the slash doesn't indicate an alternative, it points to an identity: the language of the market and the language of the government are one and the same.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 04:13:01 2020 No.16510787 >>16510759 >average hourly compensation -7% Thats a smaller piece of a massively larger pie. Was destroying your own argument part of your plan?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 04:20:39 2020 No.16510806 >>16509881 it's exactly the opposite. Inequality has grown in the neoliberal era with the slashing of welfare and public services. Inequality was at its lowest during the postwar era with the highest public spending

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 04:21:33 2020 No.16510809

>>16510785
I'm aware of the point you're getting at. The wealthy are more able to game the system, and this is true to some extent. I accept that. We don't live in an ideal world. But while accepting that, I'm saying that the larger a government is, the more levers there are for the rich to get what they want. The more limited powers a government has, the less easy it is to corrupt. One, because the powers are limited. Two, because when there's more bureaucracy, it's easier to obscure what you're doing.
>>16510787
Glad you focused on that piece but ignored total compensation, which includes benefits and other entitlements employers pay for, such as their contribution to payroll taxes.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 04:22:59 2020 No.16510813

>>16510759
>. It doesn't matter if your share of the pie is smaller if the absolute size is bigger due to more material wealth being generated.
Naive argument. A too stark imbalance in wealth distribution gives dispropotionate power to a elite few, which then allows them to distort the economic and social rules to their advantages. Neither free market nor healthy competition nor functioning market entities are possible in the presence of a too great wealth inequality. The increase of such inequality should reasonably be a cause for concern.

There's also the issue of how this wealth is spent. For a well-functioning economy you need enough of the wealth created to be put back into the economy that created it. This won't work with too much hoarding or outsourcing, and this is less likely to happen when more wealth is possessed by the lower and middle classes.

Another, more complicated issue is how that wealth inequality is fueled by (and in part the direct result of) financial and monetary practices that keep inflation somewhat in check but regularly produce wide-ranging economic crises (see the 2008 recession, the current recession although there is an external cause this time, the failure of LCTM and the narrowly-averted crisis that would have resulted, the collapse of the Japanese bubble in the 1990s, etc.). Each and every one of those crises erases years if not decades of wealth creation in a matter of months. This is a recurrent, unpredictable but to be expected, and fundamental problem of our current monetary system. The actual productivity increase over time is not as steep as it looks when you take into account the cyclical occurring of major crises. Therefore, again, an increase in wealth inequality is pretty worrying here.

There's also the question of how real that increase of wealth in the bottom rungs of the society is. There is an issue of measurement here, compounded with the uncertainty produced by the crises, which affect everyone but the poor and middle-class disproportionately so (even though they were underrepresented in the decision bodies whose practices created the crises in the first place).

Finally there is a larger argument of whether we can do better. You can say "who cares if the rich's get a bigger share when your share grows as well", but that doesn't mean there aren't ways of organization that would produce a comparable or better grow with less downsides.

Those are only five arguments off the top of my head. I'm sure looking carefully into the issue would produce more. No serious economist nowadays would argue that great economic inequality is a non-issue.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 04:27:20 2020 No.16510827

>>16510809
>But while accepting that, I'm saying that the larger a government is, the more levers there are for the rich to get what they want.
Depends a lot on how the government is organized imo, and not only on its size. A culture of public service and a better-enforced separation between public and private sector would be a step in the right direction.

>The more limited powers a government has, the less easy it is to corrupt.
True, and for both the reasons you're mentioning, but that works only if the other levers available to the rich are also limited. This was perhaps the case 250 years ago, but not anymore. Even without government intervention big companies have way too much tools for crushing smaller ones.
I believe more local government, plus transparency and a culture of defiance towards both government and organized businesses could help.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 04:28:40 2020 No.16510830

>>16509974
Democracy is the problem if you're too much of a pussy to stand up to the ruling class who exploit both domestic and foreign workers. Your fellow workers' interests are not in conflict with yours. Capitalism deprives you both of resources and makes you fight over scraps. Fuck that absolute bullshit. It wouldn't matter how many people migrate to your country if all workers got their fair share of economic output. In fact, democratising (socialising) the economies of the global south would massively curtail immigration to the West in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 04:29:04 2020 No.16510832 >>16510813 based

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 05:12:34 2020 No.16510974

>>16510813
Point 1, inequality causes government corruption, government corruption disrupts free market competition. Point taken. But why is corrupt government bad? Because it allows for things like creating artificial barriers to entry in a market. A government that's heavily interventionist will inevitably be taken over by the rich and powerful to their end, not the end of the majority.
>This won't work with too much hoarding or outsourcing
This makes it seem like (1), free trade is a zero-sum game in which one country loses and another country wins, which it's not. Further "hoarding" gives the impression that the rich do nothing useful with their wealth. They do. They want to grow their wealth, so they invest in businesses and projects that help grow the economy. They don't just stuff their money under a mattress.
For your third point, you don't seem to be saying anything I would disagree with. To be clear, my point is simply that inequality isn't inherently wrong, not that there aren't cases where inequality can't be a symptom for a larger underlying issue. For example, artificially increasing the barriers to entry in a market would increase inequality, but I wouldn't dislike the inequality, but rather that the barriers would be serving to undermine free market efficiency.
>Each and every one of those crises erases years if not decades of wealth creation in a matter of months
On the net of things, however, the economy recovers, GDP increases past where it was before, compensation increases, people who invest in diversified fashion still increase their wealth overall, etc. Yep, I'm defending a system that's imperfect and would rather change, but it's a point worth making. If the change someone suggested was more government interference, I'd take the current flawed system over it any day.
>You can say "who cares if the rich's get a bigger share when your share grows as well", but that doesn't mean there aren't ways of organization that would produce a comparable or better grow with less downsides.
Sure, that's a fair point, but you've also taken on the burden of proof of showing that your suggested change would generate more wealth for the lowest among us in society. There are some changes you could make to society that I would argue do that, but not all attempts would.
>>16510827
>and a better-enforced separation between public and private sector would be a step in the right direction.
Sure, and I would say ideally the separation should be based constitutionally as to make the intermingling of the two all the more difficult.
>Even without government intervention big companies have way too much tools for crushing smaller ones.
Give some examples. I recognize anti-trust as legitimate. But anything else you're worried about?

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 05:40:59 2020 No.16511022
File: 1.38 MB, 800x450, you_know_i_had_to_revolt_it_to_em.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16504114
IF you think it the Russian, Chinese, and Cuban Revolutions where really all liberal revolutions. There has yet to actually be a true socialist revolution. As they there Feudalistic going into sate capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 06:43:14 2020 No.16511212 File: 14 KB, 255x247, pepe-loser-forehead.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16502949 No.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 09:26:47 2020 No.16511680

>>16510830
>Democracy is the problem if you're too much of a pussy to stand up to the ruling class who exploit both domestic and foreign workers.
I don't want to stand up to the ruling class, I want my gibs like Mohammed gets under a non-democracy.
>Your fellow workers' interests are not in conflict with yours.
Of course they're not. Pedro wants to pick crops for 10x his wage in Guatemala. I don't want to pick the crops. Everybody's happy.
>Capitalism deprives you both of resources and makes you fight over scraps.
Once naturalized those same people are going to vote for "socialism" as we see in most of the Global South, where everyone is deprived of resources (which is why they moved for work in the first place).
>It wouldn't matter how many people migrate to your country if all workers got their fair share of economic output.
I'm not calling for "a fairer distribution of resources" or bemoaning indios "stealing muh jerbs". I want to benefit from foreign workers like Arabs do. I want my mestiza nanny.
>In fact, democratising (socialising) the economies of the global south would massively curtail immigration to the West in the first place.
Given the their track record this seems obviously false.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 11:08:53 2020 No.16512069
File: 35 KB, 411x395, 1488156264511.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Sowell believes that if the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden wins the 2020 US presidential election, it could signal a point of no return for the country. He believes it could lead to a tipping point for the country like the fall of the Roman Empire. In an interview in July 2020, he stated that; "the Roman Empire overcame many problems in its long history but eventually it reached a point where it could no longer continue on, and much of that was from within, not just the barbarians attacking from outside.” Sowell believes that if Biden wins, the Democratic party would have a huge amount of control over the country and if this happened, they could twin with the radical left and ideas such as defunding the police could come to fruition which would be very negative for the country

This guy was meant to have spent a decade as a marxist but thinks biden/democrats are ultraleft?

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 11:31:18 2020 No.16512181

>>16511680
What you see in most of the global south is capitalism. I want you to question why you assume poverty = socialism and who benefits from you thinking that. I'm glad you mention Pedro from Guatemala, because he is escaping capitalist market forces that drive his wages down

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 11:35:43 2020 No.16512199 >>16510759 What's the IPD, PCE, and CPI?

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 11:46:48 2020 No.16512249

>>16509984
equilibrium implies a state where any change yields no greater utility. the asymmetry of the employer to employee relationship guarantees that wages will never reach true equilibrium. as an example, a corporation can send a job to another country while workers are confined to working in their country of birth or citizenship. workers are forced to accept a lower wage and any difference between this and true equilibrium is surplus enjoyed solely by the employer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 11:52:58 2020 No.16512275 >>16510759 >The less bureaucracy in a government, the less easy it is to manipulate to your advantage makes perfect sense. when there are fewer cops on the street it is harder to commit crime ;-)

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 12:02:13 2020 No.16512332 >>16512069 They are in the US/Anglo context. Anglo countries don't have Communist Parties of note.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 12:06:20 2020 No.16512348

>>16512181
Half of those countries were run by leftwing caudillos who considered themselves Communists standing up to Tio Sam.
>I want you to question why you assume poverty = socialism and who benefits from you thinking that.
Me because I can look at Latin American modes of social organization and learn that they shouldn't be emulated.
> I'm glad you mention Pedro from Guatemala, because he is escaping capitalist market forces that drive his wages down
I want him to do that. I don't want him to become a US citizen. This is how things work in Japan, Singapore, Israel, KSA, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 12:08:41 2020 No.16512363 >>16505541 this

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 14:22:07 2020 No.16513135 >>16509868 >I believe in supply and demand and that it applies in labor markets as much as it applies in product markets. You do realize that supply and demand of the labor market is what drives mass immigration, right?

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 14:28:04 2020 No.16513171

>>16510615
>They take whatever job they can at the best wage they can while searching around for the best offer. Yes, that's what I mean by negotiation.
>Large businesses still have to take the rest of the labor market into account. If they fail to pay their workers as much as the competition, they'll experience massive turn over and lose workers to the competing employer.
You don't understand that the Capitalist, the owner of the means of productions, owns the means of production. Thus, he is in a position of strength, when time comes to negociate the labor price. Because if he owns the means of productions, the proletarian don't own nothing, except their labor force, which they are obliged to sell like bitches, in order to pay the bills. What's more, the Capitalist use unfair techniques in order to increase the supply of labor on the labor market. It's not new. In the 19th century, it use women, and even children, in order to increase the supply of worker, thus decrease the price, and today, the Capitalist use mass immigration, in order to increase the supply of workers, thus decrease the price of labor.
So yeah, in brief, if you sit on the means of production, the game is rigged, you are in a position of strength to negociate labor price. Surplus value is justified by the private property of the means of production. No private property of the means of production, no surplus value. It is not fair like you think it is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 14:31:54 2020 No.16513201 >>16513171 If the workers seized the means of production, what would prevent them from eventually wishing to increase the labor market? i.e. expand their production, which requires more labor. Just wondering.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 14:45:04 2020 No.16513282

>>16513201
There is no wages in a classless society. In lower stage communism, worker can access consumption proportionally of the amount of time they worked. In higher stage communism, production is shared, according to the needs of everybody. There is also no surplus labor. They could decide to increase necessary labor, but that would also mean that they would have more production at their disposal. In Capitalism, the aim of the Capitalist is to make the workers work more, and to give them less. In classless society, if they worked more, they would necessarily also have more.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 14:55:40 2020 No.16513366 File: 2.82 MB, 414x382, 1565165853710.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16502448 >Marxian Economics

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Mon Oct 5 14:57:29 2020 No.16513381 File: 113 KB, 540x575, 812D37FC-ADAC-4196-A183-5FA5F936DD6E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16513366 >Knowing zero a out a subject >Posing as an expert on it

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Mon Oct 5 15:00:05 2020 No.16513402 File: 113 KB, 540x575, 6AF1422D-5006-4BAD-B676-3841B36EEA3B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16513366 >Knowing zero about a subject >Posing as an expert on it

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:18:17 2020 No.16513541 [DELETED]

>>16513201
>worker can access consumption proportionally of the amount of time they worked.
So you need some sort of measurement of the amount of productive work a worker has done? If only we had something like that....

Seriously though, Communist solutions are disastrous, we need to do better to find solutions to the dangerous concentration of wealth and the proliferation of exploitation that occurs in the Capitalist system

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:19:26 2020 No.16513552

>>16513282
>worker can access consumption proportionally of the amount of time they worked.
So you need some sort of measurement of the amount of productive work a worker has done? If only we had something like that....

Seriously though, Communist solutions are disastrous, we need to do better to find solutions to the dangerous concentration of wealth and the proliferation of exploitation that occurs in the Capitalist system

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:22:55 2020 No.16513577 I think Marxism can be combined with classical liberalism. Why not have a market economy where large corporations are democracies? Means of production would be "socialized" while still operating for a profit.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:25:53 2020 No.16513596
File: 5 KB, 298x169, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16513552
>So you need some sort of measurement of the amount of productive work a worker has done? If only we had something like that....
In Capitalism, the aim of the Capitalism is not to give the workers access to consumption proportionally to the amount they worked (pic related).
> Seriously though, Communist solutions are disastrous, we need to do better to find solutions to the dangerous concentration of wealth and the proliferation of exploitation that occurs in the Capitalist system.
Politics are supposed to be over the power of money, but practically it has become it's prisoner. Capitalism dictate to politics, and not vice versa.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:28:33 2020 No.16513628

>>16513577
The entire point of Communism is to abolish wage labor, the state, production for exchange and private property. It doesn't work with market liberalism - It's closer to serfdom or a slave economy, over time elements within the Party responsible for economic planning and distribution of goods will form the equivalent of a nobility. This is why "backwards" states tend to have stronger Communist parties and "advanced" ones like the UK/US have weak ones.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:29:35 2020 No.16513636 >>16513628 meant >production for profit based on exchange value

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:30:11 2020 No.16513638 >>16513628 All current political ideologies lead to the dominance of a nobility caste. That isn’t a problem unique to Communism, Liberalism, or Fascism.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:30:49 2020 No.16513642

>>16513628
That's why I think some kind of market socialism is the solution. Markets and money are maintained and corporations are owned by workers which limits inequality and the need for a huge regulatory state.

Hate tankie apologists for the USSR/China with a passion.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:31:47 2020 No.16513651

>>16512199
Different forms of measuring inflation. CPI is the consumer price index and is the measure of inflation the U.S. government uses.
>>16512249
The amount of people who think free trade = bad is astounding, and I've explained numerous times why this thinking is flawed. Our modern economy is based on free trade with global supply chains so big that even the company that ultimately sells the product wouldn't know where everything come from. Under free market capitalism, profit margins will be made thin because if it's ever excessive, a competitor can jump in at a lower price and steal market share. So the results of trade will be seen as lower prices for the consumer.
>>16512275
So you're telling the that there's no chance that government agencies in charge of regulating different parts of the economy will be lobbied by the wealthy to regulate in such a fashion as to personally benefit them? Politicians will not be lobbied to create laws that benefit them? We need police, I agree. But we don't need nearly as much red tape in the market place as we have now. It only serves to create artificial barriers to entry in the economy that ultimately damage free market competition.
>>16513135
I don't care if there's immigration if there's no welfare state for people to parasite off of. People who come to work are welcome as far as I'm concerned.
>>16513171
Your view of reality would have us believe that during periods of laissez-faire capitalism, economic growth was minimal as was the effects on wages. And yet the gilded age was a period of booming growth and soaring American wages, and this was during a period where the population boomed from European immigration, tripling the population between 1850 and 1900. Just like free trade is a net benefit to society, immigration is a net benefit to society. People working at lower wages reduces labor costs and will be seen as lower prices to the consumer at the free market place. They will use their income and spend in on goods and services, and their spending will create jobs. And here we also find the selfish leftist "fuck you, I want to get mine" attitude cropping up again. I don't think we have a moral obligation to help out other people, but I also don't think we have a right to use violent force to prevent two people from making a mutually beneficial agreement. The people who immigrate do so because they want better wages than they can get at home. You can only justify doing this by saying "fuck them, I want to get mine. I want my welfare state!"
And let's not skip how retarded this analysis of "the capitalists own more shit, therefore they have an unfair amount of power, so I guess market equilibrium isn't a valid concept." You could apply this exact same logic past the labor market and into the product market. But the truth is simple: the best way to reduce profit margins, to reduce "surplus value" extraction? Make it as easy as possible for competitors to jump into the market.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:34:29 2020 No.16513668 >>16513651 You’re vastly oversimplifying things. At least momentarily address price dumping or something if you want to be taken seriously

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:39:17 2020 No.16513709 >>16513638 The Party upper-official - proletarian relationship is closer to precapitalist serfdom or slavery than the equivalents in fascism or liberal democracy, the main difference being the availability of money in the latter two.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:48:51 2020 No.16513785

>>16513651
You are talking like we were in an era where Capitalism is booming, is in it's prime of life. Reality is, Capitalism is entering it's final crisis. It's harder and harder for it to renew itself. Like i said before, without fictitious Capital (credit, money printing), it would already be over. I mean, definitively over.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:55:22 2020 No.16513834

>>16513596
>In Capitalism, the aim of the Capitalism is not to give the workers access to consumption proportionally to the amount they worked (pic related)
Your graph shows it was doing that prior to 1970, doesn't it? Therefore we should be able to maintain a capitalist framework while bringing hourly compensation back in line with productivity

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 15:57:26 2020 No.16513853 >>16513651 >The amount of people who think free trade = bad is astounding maybe you should reflect on why that is instead of parroting your same old talking points

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:11:53 2020 No.16513964

>>16513668
Sure, since there a few instances in which such practices have created national monopolies, I have no problem with a policy that says a business will suffer some penalty if it price discriminates. This would be to the end of ensuring fair competition. But if an international competitor genuinely just creates a better product at a better price, fuck it.
>>16513785
How long have Marxists been saying that capitalism will collapse any day now? I feel like I'm listening to Jesus coming is just around the corner. But in all seriousness, we don't live in the idealized capitalist society. The best performing economies are the ones high in free market indexes. Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland have all had booming economies at the cutting edge of growth while more left wing European countries largely fall behind. If we need to save capitalism, eliminate the virus that's been ailing it: big government.
>>16513853
Make a good argument for why free trade is bad. I'm not going to think it's bad just because random people in a thread think it is. If it's just about taking people at their word, you're asking me to choose between believing the prevailing opinion of economists that trade is a good thing and the prevailing opinion among laymen that it's not.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Mon Oct 5 16:14:00 2020 No.16513981 File: 204 KB, 1064x587, D5BD9E4A-4345-4C72-9EA9-13556CC374E6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] 300

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:17:32 2020 No.16514007

>>16513964
You have yet to address the vanishing of the middle class and the widening of the gap between the ultra wealthy and everyone else. Why is union membership down 50% since the 1980s? This level of inequality threatens to destabilize the entire system and yet you just hand wave it away

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:19:21 2020 No.16514022 >>16503798 Yes His book on marxian economics does indeed use math to explain some stuff but in different ways since its a different theory.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:29:17 2020 No.16514092

>>16514007
Unions provide higher wages for their members at a detriment to society. Economists analyze them as a cartel because they act to control the supply of labor. Unions raise their own wages at a cost to everyone else in the form of higher prices. States with right to work laws in general experience more economic growth than states with stronger union rights.
Americans have only materially gained over the passing years. People have an overly rose tinted view of times like the 1950s. There was more house ownership, sure, but the size of their houses were comparable to apartments some people rent. Society, however, is not ideal. And I would say that the best way to improve it is to deregulate more. If you want more affordable housing, for example, deregulate housing.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:30:47 2020 No.16514104

>>16513834
No. We are not able to do it. Because with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, Capitalism is obliged to do these kind of things. Otherwise it couldn't renew itself.
>How long have Marxists been saying that capitalism will collapse any day now?
Like i said, it has already collapsed. It is already over. It is virtually maintained alive through fictitious credit.
> If we need to save capitalism, eliminate the virus that's been ailing it: big government.
The government is an emanation of the Capital. In any case, even a Stateless Capitalism wouldn't address the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:34:50 2020 No.16514137
File: 82 KB, 900x675, 1478956978036.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16504155
But what does not uphold capitalism? Capitalism can literally turn everything around and use it for its own, not to mention that those structures can very well and indeed did exist outside a capitalist system.
If anything the dogmatic use of "leftists" that try to boil down everything to forms of oppression and literally dissolve all social formations helps more capitalism in the long term than does with their cause.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:40:21 2020 No.16514179 >>16514104 Why should anyone care of the predictions of a theory that has never made a correct novel prediction in the past? Might as well rub a crystal ball and tell us what you see.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:42:10 2020 No.16514206 File: 191 KB, 6109x3992, world-rate-simple-mean.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16514179

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:45:47 2020 No.16514224 >>16502448 Probably Wolff. I have never heard anything intelligent come out of the mouth of a pseudo libertarian.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:48:09 2020 No.16514246 >>16514137 wut

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:48:25 2020 No.16514249

>>16514206
Congratulations, this is something Adam Smith and David Ricardo described as happening. Marx just created his own little fantasy where it means that capitalism will end around the fact. Again, Marxism is a theory no one should take seriously because it's never made a correct novel prediction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:55:27 2020 No.16514287 >>16514246 What part of it didnt you understand?

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 16:59:35 2020 No.16514311

>>16514007
everything is less expensive save healthcare, housing, and education.
>healthcare
supply is restricted by AMA cartel, pharma cartel, it's illegal to import medicines
>housing
it's practically illegal to build new houses compared to somewhere like Japan
>education
Education is just credentialing. We can't have an efficient system of credentialism because it would be a Civil Rights violation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 17:00:19 2020 No.16514319 >>16514249 I think everyone is willing to admit that the component ideas of Marx's system were wholly unoriginal. What makes Marx impressive was his ability to synthesize so many disparate traditions into a single coherent system.

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 17:05:11 2020 No.16514346

>>16514311
>Education is just credentialing. We can't have an efficient system of credentialism because it would be a Civil Rights violation.
This isn't consistent with the data which shows that the biggest factor in the rise of education expenses is the expansion of "administrative costs."

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 17:14:15 2020 No.16514395

>>16514346
What do you think administrators are administering, exactly? Civil Rights compliance is a large part of the contemporary administrative structure of many US orgs. That's what things like HR, diversity training, title IX bureaucrats, etc. are for. Abolishing subsidies for student loans, allowing companies to use IQ tests for hiring, forcing companies to create internship programs leading into hiring for highschoolers, capping college administrative spending as a function of endowment, and reforming the Civil Rights laws would all greatly reduce the cost of education by enabling a reduction in administrative costs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 17:24:06 2020 No.16514448 >>16514311 >everything is cheaper except the necessaries for a successful life Do you hear yourself?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 17:31:07 2020 No.16514485 >>16514448 They're more expensive because of artificial restrictions on the supply of the thing in question (medicine, doctors, houses, proof of competence).

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 17:34:42 2020 No.16514503 File: 25 KB, 231x363, 1376173959421.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Sowell by a landslide

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 17:55:27 2020 No.16514628 >>16514395 >allowing companies to use IQ tests Most large contemporary companies do this though. What do you think pwc’s “interactive game based assessments” are?

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 18:10:46 2020 No.16514734

>>16514485
"Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people" - Adam Smith

Time and again you fail to take into account that every owner of capital seeks to raise their own profits by any means necessary. Any capitalist who achieves a certain level of power will necessarily artificially raise their own profits through market manipulation or contrivance with competitors to do so

Anonymous Mon Oct 5 18:26:21 2020 No.16514843

>>16514734
>Time and again you fail to take into account that every owner of capital seeks to raise their own profits by any means necessary. Any capitalist who achieves a certain level of power will necessarily artificially raise their own profits through market manipulation or contrivance with competitors to do so
This is why you benefit from Free Trade. You can buy pills from India or Ireland (where said pill is made) before they're marked up 100x for the captive American market.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 5 19:03:38 2020 No.16515056 >>16514249 >Congratulations, this is something Adam Smith and David Ricardo described as happening. Did you just googled that?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature