/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21234006]

still not debunked

[Anonymous No.21234031]

>thought revolution was imminent in 1848
>debunked
>thought revolution was imminent in 1870s
>debunked
>thought revolution was imminent in 1895
>debunked
>thought workers would choose international class interests over national interests in the coming great war
>debunked
>thought communists would overtake bourgeois socialists in the SPD and never become a tiny minority splinter party in germany
>debunked
>thought revolution would break out in leading industrialized nations (england, germany)
>debunked
>thought revolution would be spontaneous and not vanguardist blanquist
>debunked
>lenin thought that by forcing russia to go through all the stages of capitalist development communism would spontaneously emerge
>stalinbunked
>lenin thought that nations would democratically vote to remain in USSR and not need to be repressed periodically
>stalinbunked

[Anonymous No.21234049]

>>21234006
Who are they?

[Anonymous No.21234298]

>>21234006
you cannot debunk pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.21234300]

>>21234049
Men who think being a cog is a fine fate if you are merely paid equitably

[Anonymous No.21234314]

>>21234006
they've been debunked a million times.
capitalism won.
get over it.

[Anonymous No.21234394]

>>21234314
>believing in the command v. market economy dichotomy

[Anonymous No.21234480]

Not debunked but surpassed by D&G in the sense they actualized them thanks to Deleuze interpretation of Nietzsche. Marx and Engels just couldnt have the concepts needed to take in count the materialistic reality of the XX and XXI centuries I guess. Their biggest fuck up was thinking they could actually predict when communism was going to happen.
I dont see how anyone can think their value theory is wrong, or how can anyone think capitalism, unless you are born rich, and I mean really rich.

[Anonymous No.21234502]

Debunked by Christ and the apostles

[Anonymous No.21234503]

Marxist theory is quite useful for understanding cultural objects and trends within capitalism and its development. Marx is perhaps the only staunchly modernist writer whose thought can still hold its own against post-modernist critiques and demands of intersectional writers.
The very same people who try calling Marxism and Marxist theory post-modern as some sort of boogeyman are in reality post-modern at the very core of their ideology.

[Anonymous No.21234509]

>>21234480
think capitalism is good*
ftfm
>inb4 that meme image that explains how it is good because the guy who owns the means of production has to invest and take monetary risks so being exploted and having to pay for things that couldnt possibly have value without the exploted workers (the product wouldnt even exist if there werent workers to operated the means of production lol) is actually good and people should be grateful about it

[Anonymous No.21234522]

>>21234006
Literally deboonked by reality lmao

[Anonymous No.21234576]

>>21234522
how so

[Anonymous No.21234654]

>>21234300
That doesn't answer my question.

[Anonymous No.21234662]

>>21234576
giving the state a monopoly on all capital didn't cause it to magically wither away

[Anonymous No.21234730]

They were wrong. Why does finance capital rule the world and not industrial capital?

[Anonymous No.21234745]

>>21234662
Marx thinks the State is what makes capitalism possible in the first place afaik, and communism implies no state
What the soviets did was an interpretation of Marx, and Lenin was also a big reader of Hegel not just Marx. And Stalin was just a whole different animal

[Anonymous No.21234752]

>>21234006
Actually Marx deboonked himself several times over and saw self-deboonking and reviews as the most important aspect of his project. Marxists of course do not want you to know this, prefering cultish, half-remembered orthodoxy mainly consisting of cobbled together Kautskyisms, Leninisms, a sprinkle of Engelsisms, served with a layer of Althusserian anti-humanism.

[Anonymous No.21234754]

>>21234300
Isn't that literally what capitalism is?

[Anonymous No.21234792]

>>21234031
fpbp

[Anonymous No.21234793]

>>21234754
No, capitalism has an impulse to pay the "cog" as little and make his position as precarious as possible through various means, such as deskilling, shifting composition of capital and in more recent years expanding the reserve army of labor through transnational enterprise and monetary policy action.

[Anonymous No.21234809]

Social relations precede material conditions.
The "economic forces" don't determine society any more than the superstructure/ideology

[Anonymous No.21234835]

>>21234809
1) Your two assertions are contradictory.
2) So-called "dialectical materialism" is not a concept found in Marx, but a form of vulgar materalism espoused by degenerated Leninists, chiefly Soviet ones.

[Anonymous No.21234872]

>>21234503
>-modernist critiques and demands of intersectional writers.
Prrobably the most capitalist products of all

[Anonymous No.21234903]

The last century has proven that identity politics are FAR stronger than material politics, and that most people will accept material losses to advance identity politics. Marxists can cope and say that it's just a bourgeois distraction, but it's not one they can overcome anyway.

[Anonymous No.21234910]

>>21234809
Wouldn't economic relations be social relations in Marxism?

[Anonymous No.21234922]

>>21234910
Yes, only neo-classical economists believe they're somehow not.

[Anonymous No.21234941]

I dont know how can you belong to the working class in the 21st century without at least an engineering phd.

Fortune 500 (500 best performing businesses every year) are all led and founded by engineers. Finance is being dominated by 'quants', math and physicists who make algorithms. These lobby the government to make all the laws they need, so they also control the politics and society. Art, music, entertainment, culture.. all algorithms these days. State security, intelligence, military, this is all sensors and computers now.

You cant work in the semiconductor industry without an engineering phd. Cant work in aerospace. Cant work in military industry. Heavy industry. Mining. Construction. Machine and ship building, heavy machinery. Infrastructure. Power. Transport, cargo rail. Manufacturing.
All engineers.

Average blue hair leftist never had a job, never will. Not a worker. Simply not the working class. Vanity degrees only give you welfare pseudojobs. Its all pseudo minwage because you lose 50% of it on day 1 to rent, other 50% to taxes. You dont produce anything. You dont build anything. Your life is nonsense. From birth to death, everything you do is irrelevant woman tier gossip nonsense. Cattle population, technically illiterate, cant vote (lobbying), cant own property (rentoids), its the Rome equivalent to those vulgar masses where only 0.002% could earn their freedom through gladiator battles or being a skilled slave who managed to learn to read on his own, so something like a 14 year old hacker hired by pentagon in today's world.

>tl;dr
Modern workers revolution would wipe out 99.9% of the population, corporations are the only workers around.

[Anonymous No.21235065]

>>21234809
how can there be social relations before material conditions

[Anonymous No.21235080]

Racial Marxism would have succeeded. Only a vitalistic narod can fight back capital and establish a decentralised social system.

[Anonymous No.21235103]

>>21234941
>I dont know how can you belong to the working class in the 21st century without at least an engineering phd.

[Anonymous No.21235139]

If you want an answer to the question of "where is the working class, who are they?" Start by looking around your desk if you're posting from a computer on a desk, and maybe you have a coffee mug on it. Where was that made? Who made it? Look at the label where it says "MADE IN..."

Where did the coffee in your mug come from? Who assembled the components of the computer? Fundamentally the capitalism that Marx wrote about more than a century ago remains intact and it's more globalized than ever, splitting up work between factories in different countries, linking the world into what he called a new and internationalized division of labor.

[Anonymous No.21235152]

>>21234006
>In the teaching of socialism "a will to the denial of life" is but poorly concealed: botched men and races they must be who have devised a teaching of this sort. In fact, I even wish a few experiments might be made to show that in a socialistic society, life denies itself, and itself cuts away its own roots. The earth is big enough and man is still unexhausted enough for a practical lesson of this sort and demonstratio ad absurdum--even if it were accomplished only by a vast expenditure of lives--to seem worth while to me.

[Anonymous No.21235157]

I like how the big bang theory, which is really just a scientist creation story, being disproven also endorses Marxism

[Anonymous No.21235173]

>>21235103
You posted some irrelevant small time profiteer whose market cap of the textile industry is less than 0.000000000000001%.
All serious capital, serious big business is ready to switch to full automation so it doesnt have to deal with pesky unions.

Also, you posted fucking Bangladesh. How many blue hair twitter communists work in Bangladesh?

[Anonymous No.21235189]

>>21235173
>full automation
how do you make money from a machine?
what products do machines buy?

get some theory jfc

[Anonymous No.21235193]

>>21235173
>You posted some irrelevant small time profiteer whose market cap of the textile industry is less than 0.000000000000001%.
One of the richest men in the world is Bernard Arnault -- I think usually in the top three although it varies based on how the markets are doing -- and so where does he source his clothes? Or other major retailers? But the production tasks are outsourced to poor countries and they operate through subsidiaries and contractors nowadays.

[Anonymous No.21235195]

>>21235173
>Also, you posted fucking Bangladesh. How many blue hair twitter communists work in Bangladesh?
Probably none. But there are more communists there than you might think. There's a reason why they fly red flags when they go on strike. Most communists in the world are not in the Western countries.

[Anonymous No.21235228]

>>21235189
machine owners can theoretically just trade between themselves

[Anonymous No.21235235]

>>21234006
Tripartism (class cooperation) has been demonstrated to work very well in creating a far more equal society, as demonstrated by the Scandinavian countries, than any country influenced by Marxian economics.
>>21234031
FPBP.

[Anonymous No.21235246]

>>21234394
what's the alternative

[Anonymous No.21235259]

>>21235195
But how can a workers revolution happen in the west, when western countries dont even have any workers?
My whole point in >>21234941 is that western countries have less than ~5% worker population.

[Anonymous No.21235322]

>>21235259
That's a good point. A revolution is impossible because the working class was made to "disappear." But my point is that it's not like it actually went away. It's larger than ever but you have to zoom out and take in the whole picture.

Interesting thing now too where the system is kinda blowing up (that doesn't mean it's finished and revolution is nigh though) in terms of inter-capitalist conflict, but it's not random, it blew up over Ukraine instead of Taiwan because China isn't capitalist and so only indirectly subject to these forces. They already have all the productive forces they need behind national boundaries (along with a big chunk of the working class), what they need to maintain stability is an uncontested source of energy and raw materials (and it's harder to think of a better prize than Russia), while stability for the western bourgeoisie requires them to either break China or Russia.

[Anonymous No.21235344]

Also the government over there doesn't say Marxism is busted. They even donated a statue to Trier which is now a Chinese tourist destination which makes you wonder what Marx would think about that

https://youtu.be/lIEZKJRPxb4

[Anonymous No.21235362]

>>21234006
It's been debunked.

[Anonymous No.21235364]

I think people vastly overrated Marx's insights into capitalism. Like anybody with a functioning brain can see the flaws within the system.

[Anonymous No.21235938]

>>21235364
utopian socialists preceded Marx, it is him who set it on a scientific basis rather than a moral one. mostly through the discovery of surplus value.

[Anonymous No.21236202]

>>21235362
>It's been debunked.
This is a really weak take on Kołakowski's project which is a history of ideas as a typography, not a critique.

>>21235938
>a scientific basis
Wißenschaft translates poorly into "science" in English, really fucking poorly. "Systematic socialism" would be a better translation.

[Anonymous No.21236610]

>>21234480
Deriving the value of a commodity through its exchange value is wrong. Exchanging two objects does not imply their “true” worth.

[Anonymous No.21236616]

>>21236610
Marx's theory isnt that afaik
Do you have a quote?

[Anonymous No.21236622]

>>21234941
>I dont know how can you belong to the working class in the 21st century without at least an engineering phd.
by living in the third world

[Anonymous No.21236623]

A man gives 2 corn cobs for 1 beer. So 1 beer is worth 2 corn cobs. Another man gives 3 corn cobs for 1 beer, for reasons the beer seller cannot explain. Now the beer is worth 3 cobs. So what is the intrinsic value of beer?

[Anonymous No.21236626]

>>21235152
Nietzsche thinks that socialism (at least his interpretation of it) is a product of capitalism

[Anonymous No.21236630]

>>21236616
It’s in the beginning of Das Capital, I believe the first chapter. And it’s a long quote.
“Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third.
A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.
This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value. Then one use value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity.”

[Anonymous No.21236631]

>>21234509
now I want to see the image

[Anonymous No.21236635]

>>21234314
Capitalism won because people with money and power crushed communism and socialism any time it came near power, not because the ideas are better. That's like saying the ufc is an intelligence contest

[Anonymous No.21236649]

>>21235152
marxism didn't exist during neetch's time, not all socialisms are equal.

[Anonymous No.21236677]

>>21236635
>Capitalism won because people with money and power crushed communism and socialism any time it came near power, not because the ideas are better.
Isn't the essence of Marx that the conflict between the two is emphatically not a contest of ideas anyway?

[Anonymous No.21236686]

Marx, the serious analytical thinker... Engels, his perverted rich companion that's really into femdom.

[Anonymous No.21236731]

>>21236630
You can't just take some random elaboration on value theory from Capital and claim that this is somehow Marx theory. The whole point of Capital is to elaborate, test and if possible dismantle the assumptions of economic thinkers of Marx's time. He goes over like five different theories of value in the first chapter alone, none of them "his".

[Anonymous No.21237571]

>>21236731
This is a criticalpart of his theory, stated at the very beginning of das capital for a reason. I’m taking Marx with what he wrote, not extrapolations. From his very words he describes a “third” thing that is the intrinsic value of a commodity. This is critical for him to establish value in the first place, through which he derives his notion of surplus value. You can’t have “surplus” value or “exploitation” without assuming that commodities have an intrinsic value to begin with. This is why Marx wrote those words at the beginning of das capital. From the very beginning, at the very foundation, Marx is wrong. Commodities do not have an intrinsic value and exchanging commodities demonstrates nothing. Despite Marx’ readings of Hegel, he still manages to be philosophically illiterate. No philosopher would be so bold to base intrinsic value off of an argument so flimsy. And of course Marx DOES NOT elaborate on intrinsic value again through the rest of capital. He makes bold conjectures, the proceeds from there.

[Anonymous No.21237827]

>>21234793
You never had a factory job did you.

[Anonymous No.21238538]

>>21235173
>Also, you posted fucking Bangladesh. How many blue hair twitter communists work in Bangladesh?
You asked about the working class retard, not blue-haired westerners pretending they're somehow communist. and if you come at me saying these textile workers aren't working class then you truly cannot be saved

[Anonymous No.21238541]

>>21234006
>And of course Karl Marx put the final touches on the edifice by providing the theoretical justification for what was as yet only emotion, impulse, need. Marx is truly a bourgeois thinker when he explains all of history by work, when he formulates man's whole relation to the world in terms of work, when he evaluates all thought in terms of its relation to work, and when he gives work as the creative source of value. Although he did not believe in values, he implies that work is a virtue when he condemns the classes that do not work. He was one of the most articulate interpreters of the bourgeois myth of work, and because he was a socialist and a defender of the working class, he was one of the most active agents in spreading the myth to this class. Besides, it was through work that this class would one day win power and freedom. For the post-Marxian working class, therefore, work meant both the explanation of its condition and the certainty of seeing it end. Once the motive of doctrine had been added to the motive of necessity, how could the workers fail to be imbued with this ideology? It was the bourgeois who invented the dogma of the eminent dignity of the worker, but it was Karl Marx who led the proletariat to this thenceforth ineradicable conviction. From then on, the myth of work became a myth of the left, and the bourgeois and the worker were united in the same commonplace: work is the be-all and end-all of life. The only difference is that for the bourgeois, work tends more and more to be the work of other people, while for the worker only he himself can bear the noble title of worker. Anyone who does not belong to the proletariat, being a nonworker, is a parasite.

[Anonymous No.21238595]

>>21234006
They're debunked by the calculation problem. In a socialist society producers have no way of determining the most efficient way to allocate resources because collective ownership of production means you don't have "exchange" but merely an internal transfer of goods. Without competition and market-determined prices, producers have no way of knowing if they're being rational in their use of resources, if they're satisfying consumer need, or if they're massively failing.
For example imagine you're running a company that builds houses. In a free market economy, each constituent element (the cost of various materials, the labour) is determined by price, and at the end of the day you sell the house which is also based on price. You know exactly how much it cost to build the house and exactly how much you sold it for. If you made a profit, you know that you've been rational in your use of these resources, and if you made a loss you know you've been irrational.
In a socialist system, you would have no idea if you've been rational or not, because you would simply be tasked by the state to build x amount of houses in a certain location, and whether or not these are actually profitable (meaning rational) ventures is not able to be determined. Thus these irrational actions compound and the society becomes poor and miserable.

[Anonymous No.21238631]

>>21234006
>All this theory
>Not a single place where his ideas have worked
kek

[Anonymous No.21238665]

>>21238595
Embarrasing. Read Marx and try again.

[Anonymous No.21238703]

>>21234006
>>21234031


all these are right

also

>recently, during the beginning of the covid global lockdown period, for a few weeks oil became cheaper than water, because the economy became paralyzed, and there was no to sell all the stored oil barrels.
That agrees with the supply and demand theory of value, while contradicting the marxist theory of value.

And something communists don't care about but should. Marxism pays attention to social class, but no attention to social status, something which isn't the same as how much money you have.
Communists fight to make everything equal economically, but don't care about making everyone equal in status, and create societies with great status inequality, like a member of the communsit party vs a factory worker.

[Anonymous No.21238874]

>>21237827
I'm sure he'd love a good union factory job , too bad multinational corpos relocated all the factories to third world societies where the workers are paid almost nothing. Which exactly illustrates his point

[Anonymous No.21238885]

>>21238541
Am I supposed to recognize this ugly nigger just by his photo? Also what is the point of this claptrap? It sounds like a fucking Facebook post

[Anonymous No.21238909]

>>21234031
Marxsisters... not like this...

[Anonymous No.21238922]

>>21238665
What is it with 4chan culture and the view that mockery is an acceptable alternative to rational argumentation? I gave you a fleshed out argument against socialism, containing no insults or caustic rhetoric, and you can only respond "Embarrassing. Read Marx and try again." That's literally not an argument. I don't mind the insults, but you have to actually provide an argument if you consider yourself a rational thinker and philosopher, which everyone should.

[Anonymous No.21238943]

>>21238922
That's not a 4chan it's a Marxist thing. "Read Marx" is literally a meme because of how frequently they just say that instead of even attempting to defend any of their points

[Anonymous No.21239029]

>>21234006
They've been nothing but debunked continuously through history.

[Anonymous No.21239037]

>>21238631
It worked in many places.

[Anonymous No.21239053]

Socialism only worked in Prussia and has almost overtaken the world,
everywhere else is just forced emulation

[Anonymous No.21239342]

>>21238943
True. I saw a YouTube comment yesterday, which literally said “Don’t criticise Marxism unless you have read Das Kapital”.

[Anonymous No.21239364]

>>21239342
Well that's not unreasonable. I was just referring to how marxists behave in internet discussions. It's like pic related

[Anonymous No.21239402]

>>21239364
The person he was responding to did put out a reasonable critique against Marxism, though. Instead of defending his initial comment about how Marx was right, he literally just replied to the critique by saying “Lmao, read Marx”.

[Anonymous No.21239445]

>>21234006
OKay, but who cares about them?

[Anonymous No.21239461]

>>21239037
>Bro this commune in Catalonia lasted almost a month! Also what about cavemen, huh???

[Anonymous No.21239484]

>>21239402
I think there's something very specific behind the typical marxist "read Marx" reaction: you see, when they demand any possible counter argument to informed by close reading to the actual meaning to Marx's theory, this is not a demand to that any critique be grounded on textual legitimacy but rather, they are not willing to entertain arguments sprung from non-marxist/marxian paradigmas. That anon pulled an counter point based on a concept not created by Marx or authors influenced by him, just as if you try to bring up the theme of human nature/instinct/evo. psych. Marx and his followers thought of humans and interest groups as rational agents, therefore a marxists doesn't feel compelled to consider that communism may be impossible due to aspects of human biology.

[Anonymous No.21239558]

>>21239484
Very good point.

[Anonymous No.21239572]

>>21238885
He's only one of the the most important Marxists of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.21239605]

>>21239484
>Marx and his followers thought of humans and interest groups as rational agents
Brainlet here. What does it mean to view human nature as rational agents?

[Anonymous No.21239671]

>>21239605
There are two possible takes on that. The first level, at face-value, of the rational human idea states that any individual human can make the most profitable/benefical to oneself choice out of many options if given all relevant knowledge on the premisses and if capable of good enough cogntive prowess. Now, the second and deeper level defends that human decision making is not at any significant deegre impaired or linked to hormones, animal instincts inherited from our evolutionary and genetic history.

[Anonymous No.21239730]

>>21234031
Wow these guys have a great track record, I better devote my entire life to their theories and predictions

[Anonymous No.21241389]

>>21239671
>>21239605
>>21239484
This is not correct, you are confusing pervasive neoclassical presuppositions with the more probabilistic approach of the late Marx.

[Anonymous No.21241396]

>>21241389
Neoclassical "presuppositions" are "probabilistic" as well, or more accurately empirical. Neoclassical "rationality" is predicated upon what most agents tend towards, as determined via empirical trends in spending and market behavior, which is all explained in more detail vis-a-vis the sub-discipline of behavioral economics. I have no idea what you mean by "Marx's probabilistic approach" but I assume it's very similar.

[Anonymous No.21241409]

>>21238703
supply and demand doesnt contradict anything marx said you dumbass
the guy you replied to had valid points but yours is completely midwit

[Anonymous No.21241427]

>>21237571
how could exchanging commodities demonstrate nothing when economics is intrinsically about the exchanging of commodities? his point is the illuminate the contradictions inherent in this exchange

[Anonymous No.21242036]

>>21241427
Exchanging commodities does not demonstrate the intrinsic value of those commodities. It doesn’t matter what economics is “about”. Marx is making a metaphysical claim, going beyond the boundaries of economics. Without intrinsic value he cannot discuss what a commodity is truly worth, so exploitation is off the table. Exchanging two objects is a single act that is being used to define the inherent worth of those objects. It is simplistic at its core. You can witness his error in watching real transactions, where objects are traded for many diffferent quantities and reasons, creating different values for the same commodity, producing a contradiction. Corns value can be worth X over here and Y over there.

[Anonymous No.21242065]

>>21238595
The Marxist thinks commodities have an intrinsic worth that dictates what they can be traded for. Through this they can “calculate” what is viable. Labor is what supposedly dictates that commodities worth.

[Anonymous No.21242072]

>>21238595
>In a socialist society producers have no way of determining the most efficient way to allocate resources
most efficient by what measure?
>Without competition and market-determined prices, producers have no way of knowing if they're being rational in their use of resources
yes they do, they have the theoretical knowledge of what inputs produce what outputs, they can also observe the results of production post-hoc and supply the theoretical knowledge with practical experience.
>if they're satisfying consumer need, or if they're massively failing.
don't be retarded. people know whether they are or aren't getting what they need and they have mouths to communicate.
>If you made a profit, you know that you've been rational in your use of these resources, and if you made a loss you know you've been irrational.
"rational" here stands for successful in capital accumulation, not for satisfying social needs. you can make profit selling houses to rentiers who will keep them unoccupied for speculation and you can make a loss selling houses to people who would've been homeless otherwise. ability to pay != need.
>because you would simply be tasked by the state to build x amount of houses in a certain location
because there's a need for houses in that location.
>and whether or not these are actually profitable (meaning rational) ventures is not able to be determined.
yes it is. people can rationally deliberate whether they need x houses there or something else, and then decide what to build.
>>21242036
>Exchanging commodities does not demonstrate the intrinsic value of those commodities.
sure, it demonstrates extrinsic value
>Without intrinsic value he cannot discuss what a commodity is truly worth, so exploitation is off the table
yes he can, because the true value of commodities is extrinsic, social, not intrinsic
>Exchanging two objects is a single act that is being used to define the inherent worth of those objects
no, if two objects aren't of equal value, then won't be regularily exchanged for one another.

[Anonymous No.21242081]

Refuted by Hegel and Gentile

[Anonymous No.21242249]

>>21242072
>most efficient by what measure?
Satisfying consumer demand.
> theoretical knowledge of what inputs produce what outputs, they can also observe the results of production post-hoc
It's always best to deal with concrete examples. Say there are two steel companies producing steel, company A and company B. Both of these companies are tasked by the state to produce a certain amount of steel every year, and both meet the quotas. But say company A produces steel much more efficiently than company B. Company B uses outdated methods and requires more resources to produce the same amount of steel.
Under a free market system, company B's steel would simply cost much more because the cost of production would be much higher. People would buy more from Company A because its steel is cheaper and B would be outcompeted.
However under a socialist system, the only corrective to company B would be some sort of bureaucratic inquiry which investigates the problem and comes to a decision, and forces B to change its production methods. But maybe B will have its own arguments, maybe changing production methods would mean firing a huge portion of staff, and this is perhaps against "the social good". And in some cases the inefficiency will be invisible because it could be that both companies require a similar amount of labour but company B's production method is just more resource-consuming.
Multiply this problem by millions. All the little tweaks and inefficiencies in all the companies throughout the society would have to be corrected through bureaucratic process. Everybody knows how slow and inefficient bureaucracies are. Expecting them to deal with a problem this complex is absurd.
In a free market economy, this is all dealt with automatically. I know which company to buy steel from because that company outcompetes the others, it sells steel for cheaper and gains a name for itself for producing quality steel at a good price. All the little inefficiencies are ironed out through the phenomena of competition and price.
>you can make profit selling houses to rentiers who will keep them unoccupied for speculation
Yes and those rentiers take a risk assuming the price will go up and they could be wrong and lose money. Of course it's unfortunate that the state bails them out at the end of the day but this is semi-socialism not capitalism.
>selling houses to people who would've been homeless otherwise
In the Soviet Union they just arrested homeless people and threw them in prison if they chose not to work. Socialism isn't nicer to the homeless than capitalism. Both demand them to work and contribute, they just don't want to.

[Anonymous No.21242463]

>>21242249
>Satisfying consumer demand.
"consumer demand" is so-called effective demand, demand for commodities backed by ability to pay. this is a completely irrelevant measure for socialist society, since there products aren't commodities in the first place and effective demand doesn't exist at all. so this entire argument reduces to "socialist society isn't capitalist society"
>But maybe B will have its own arguments, maybe changing production methods would mean firing a huge portion of staff, and this is perhaps against "the social good".
so what's the problem here again?
>And in some cases the inefficiency will be invisible because it could be that both companies require a similar amount of labour but company B's production method is just more resource-consuming
so it would be visible? you can see how much resources and labour is being spent and what the output is. again, where's the problem?
>All the little tweaks and inefficiencies in all the companies throughout the society would have to be corrected through bureaucratic process
in socialist society production is planned by society from the start, so the modifications to the production plan are also made by society. you still haven't formulated what the problem with this is though.
>Expecting them to deal with a problem this complex is absurd.
why? and why set up an entire example when in the end your whole argument is just you saying "this is just <insert pejorative>" lmao
>In a free market economy, this is all dealt with automatically.
hardly. it requires a heap of work from managers and then another heap of work from state lawmakers, bureaucrats, law enforcement, etc. it also involves an immense waste of product due to the unplanned and chaotic nature of the process, to decentralization, companies being started and failing, cyclical crises, etc. and we didn't even get to all the military destruction the competition leads to.
>and those rentiers take a risk assuming the price will go up and they could be wrong and lose money.
who asked? point is the houses don't fulfill the need for housing, even when they're profitable. and that they can fulfill the need for housing while not being profitable. it's a point against you equating profit with a social need being satisfied.
>it's unfortunate that the state bails them out at the end of the day but this is semi-socialism not capitalism.
no, that's capitalism. that's the capitalist state making sure that a wave of bankruptcies doesn't erupt and impair the functioning of capitalist economy "through the phenomena of competition and price".
>In the Soviet Union they just arrested homeless people and threw them in prison if they chose not to work
Soviet Union was capitalist
>Socialism isn't nicer to the homeless than capitalism. Both demand them to work and contribute, they just don't want to.
no, one demands people to contribute and the other demands them to let themselves be continuously exploited by capital in order to build up alien wealth.

[Anonymous No.21242470]

>>21242072
>>21242249
>>21242463
You can't even do Calc 3. Nobody cares what you think.

[Anonymous No.21242503]

>>21236649
It did, they were alive during the same time period. Also, Marx got his ideas from Robert Owen so the critique applies. A lot Marxists are massive pseuds. Aristotle had already refuted Communism with his Critiques of it in Plato's Republic. You guys don't really understand the genealogy of communism which is why you're off the mark every time.
>>21242072
>>21242249
>>21242463
Marx was already refuted by Boehm-Bawerk. Constant capital and use-value determine the value of a commodity. Variable capital will not make a difference without either one of these variables. Since Marx can not rectify that contradiction - he can not prove exploitation. That also means surplus value does not exist, and therefore none of Marx's theories have any value. Marx can not tell us where profit is coming from, and more so, profit rates won't fall if use-value and constant capital are a factor in the exchange-value of a commodity.

[Anonymous No.21242516]

If it isn't clear enough. Marx says labor gives a commodity its value. But constant capital and use-value are not from labor. They are intrinsic value that come from its natural properties. Commodities can have value without labor. This is observable reality. Marx can not exploitation because upfront constant capital and use-value are not determined by any labor inputs. There is no counter-argument to this by Marxists. And you won't receive one.

[Anonymous No.21242528]

Even his theory of historical materialism is nonsensical. Economic determinism can be rejected just by using common sense. You can find constant examples of people using non-economic factors to make decisions. Hitler didn't murder Jewish children because they had money. Russia isn't invading Ukraine, a much poorer country, for money either. Nationalism, antisemitism can not be purely reduced to money.

[Anonymous No.21242562]

>>21242503
>Marx was already refuted by Boehm-Bawerk.
how?
>Constant capital and use-value determine the value of a commodity
how do you know that?
>Variable capital will not make a difference without either one of these variables
it will, since it's a cost of production, just like constant capital, and a capitalist who sells below cost of production can't stay in business.
>Since Marx can not rectify that contradiction - he can not prove exploitation
which contradiction?
>That also means surplus value does not exist
look at any historical GDP graph
>Marx can not tell us where profit is coming from
he has though. how was he wrong?
>>21242516
>Marx says labor gives a commodity its value. But constant capital and use-value are not from labor.
use-value is distinct from value, so there's no contradiction here. and constant capital does come from labour
>Commodities can have value without labor
no, commodities are products produced for exchange. show me a production process that doesn't involve labour
>Marx can not exploitation because upfront constant capital and use-value are not determined by any labor inputs.
how does that even follow?
>There is no counter-argument to this by Marxists.
probably because this doesn't constitute an argument, just a bunch of meaningless assertions based on a misuse of terms
>>21242528
>Hitler didn't murder Jewish children because they had money
capital organized the death of Jews in Germany because they were useless for the production process and there was too many of them to let them die by themselves. Engels:
>There is only over-population where there is an excess of productive forces in general, and [we have seen] that private property has made man a merchandise whose production and destruction depend only on demand, and that competition has slaughtered and every day slaughters in this way millions of men.

>Russia isn't invading Ukraine, a much poorer country, for money either
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/10/ukraine-russia-energy-mineral-wealth/
>After nearly six months of fighting, Moscow’s sloppy war has yielded at least one big reward: expanded control over some of the most mineral-rich lands in Europe. Ukraine harbors some of the world’s largest reserves of titanium and iron ore, fields of untapped lithium and massive deposits of coal. Collectively, they are worth tens of trillions of dollars....
>“The worst scenario is that Ukraine loses land, no longer has a strong commodity economy and becomes more like one of the Baltic states, a nation unable to sustain its industrial economy,” said Stanislav Zinchenko, chief executive of GMK, a Kyiv-based economic think tank. “This is what Russia wants. To weaken us.”
etc. it all has its basis in the economy and the state power that feeds on the controlled economy.

[Anonymous No.21242569]

>>21242562
>capital organized
It was in fact people, not capital, being as capital is an abstract dynamic that exists in between people, and does not wholly explain their behavior but intertwines with many other abstract dynamics.

[Anonymous No.21242583]

>>21242569
>It was in fact people, not capital
sure, I assumed you'd be able to handle a single metaphor
>and does not wholly explain their behavior but intertwines with many other abstract dynamics.
I agree, it doesn't wholly explain the behaviour of each person. but it does explain mass movements that lead to the killing of millions of people, which is strictly what we're talking about here.

[Anonymous No.21242588]

>>21242569
>>21242583
a simple metaphor*

[Anonymous No.21242590]

>>21242470
I'm literally studying Mathematics and Philosophy in university. Calculus is incredibly easy you just learn formulas and apply them like a robot.
>>21242463
>so what's the problem here again?
The problem is that it's an inefficient use of resources. Sure in the short term it could be more beneficial for those workers to have jobs but in reality these people and their labour are needed elsewhere. If you maximise efficiency society becomes much wealthier.
>so it would be visible?
It's an incredibly complex process that is impossible to detect and rectify through bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are notoriously corrupt, slow and inefficient. For example here in the UK we have mandatory yearly inspections of vehicles. This policy is totally irrational, because statistics show that such laws do not reduce traffic fatalities. And yet the state mandates this simply because the car mechanic industry scaremongers and pays off politicians in order to prop up their industry. If bureaucracies were really entirely rational and corruption-free then your system would work.
> it requires a heap of work from managers and then another heap of work from state lawmakers, bureaucrats, law enforcement, etc.
This isn't capitalism it's state tyranny. The alliance between the state and corporations is what prevents competition and the circulation of elites. In a truly free market, none of this would impeded competition. You would have no monopolies or bureaucratic processes.
>no, that's capitalism. that's the capitalist state making sure that a wave of bankruptcies doesn't erupt
It's the state preventing competition and the circulation of elites. A true capitalist society does not do "bail outs". If you made bad investments, that's on you. You fail and someone else takes your place who will make wiser decisions. There are no monopolies in a truly free market.

[Anonymous No.21242594]

>>21242528
Russia is invading Ukraine because it needs Crimean warm water port, and for this ukraine has to cooperate with Russian controlled Crimea. It also likes having Ukraine as a buffer to hostile European powers and doesnt want Kiev controlled by NATO. This war is an example of a very clear cut "materially determined" situation. It is the behavior of the West which doesnt make sense, why they care about Ukraine, and went back on their old policy of considering it Russias sphere of influence back in the euromaidan.

[Anonymous No.21242608]

>>21242562
Use-value is not distinct from value. This is just a tautology. And you're just spamming again to hide the contradictions in your argument.
>no, commodities are products produced for exchange.
Its pretty clear you haven't read Marx. Marx says in the first chapter in Capital that a commodity is not a commodity without exchange and use-value. Use-value is not determined but utility. A commodity must have both. Its not surprising you don't know this. You are the typical pseud humanities major. We can't even continue the argument here because you fundamentally don't understand Marx's most basic arguments.
>capital organized the death of Jews in Germany because they were useless for the production
This isn't true - some Jews were used as slave labor, and there could have been used for production. Hitler knew this, even his allies knew this - which is why Japan and Germany were extremely lenient for on Jews. But this argument even more retarded, by you, because you essentially saying it wasn't economical for to waste time killing unproductive people.
As for your second argument. Its completely retarded. Russia has lost more troops, more money from sanctions, and the collapse of Kherson puts even more economic pressure woes on Russia. He could have easily gotten those minerals through trade, but instead he's paying a higher cost in Russian lives, GDP, and military strength. Russia isolating itself from the world market, worth trillions of dollars, is not worth a few minerals in a country that is already rich coal and lithium, retard.

[Anonymous No.21242611]

>>21242583
>the profit motive of wage labor explains why Hitler was worried about Jews creating banking mafias and fomenting revolutions
...

[Anonymous No.21242636]

Even the Russia minerals argument is even more retarded when you realize the Soviet Union had access to these same minerals during the Cold War. But you want tell us they Russia has the ability to utilize them in effective way when history shows that isn't the case. And they weren't under HIMARS fire, brain drain from the war, and economic sanctions either. Being resource rich doesn't imply wealth can be generated either. Using your argument, African countries would be the richest countries right now. Lmao.

[Anonymous No.21242646]

>>21242594
This is completely wrong. Putin said himself his invasion is due to the collapse of the USSR, and the political ramifications of its dent on Russian nationalism. He says this in all his speeches. He blames the wish for colonialism, imperialism etc - its a purely political, not economical invasion. You're just ignoring facts of what the Russians say explicitly.

[Anonymous No.21242655]

>>21242646
It doesnt matter what he says, Russia cares about ukraine for the same geopolitical reasons it has for the past 500+ years. It has literally always wanted to control that territory.

[Anonymous No.21242658]

>>21234031
I am a Marxist myself, but damn FPBP, this guy actually reads unlike all of y'all.

[Anonymous No.21242662]

>>21242655
It does matter what he says. It creates motive and reasoning. In court, that would be used as evidence. Direct statements are what got people hanged at Nuremberg. If statements don't matter - why the fuck would anyone care what Marx had to say? You're just putting yourself in a pretzel. Philosophy doesn't matter when its convenient for you.

[Anonymous No.21242667]

>>21242594
Do you realise that if we had free trade none of the economic incentives for warfare would attain simply because it is irrelevant to a Russian whether they buy their milk from someone living under the Ukrainian state or the Russian state? The solution isn't to do away with private ownership but to do away with gangsters of all types -- including statesmen -- who want to infringe on others' property rights.

[Anonymous No.21242676]

>>21242667
>The solution isn't to do away with private ownership but to do away with gangsters of all types -- including statesmen -- who want to infringe on others' property rights.
Well that's just Communism with extra steps.

[Anonymous No.21242677]

>>21242590
>The problem is that it's an inefficient use of resources
according to what measure?
>If you maximise efficiency society becomes much wealthier.
wealthier in what terms? society can become wealthier in free time if it gives up some labour, or wealthier in enjoyment when it chooses to use a method less productive in terms of the quantity of output but more pleasant to the workers
>It's an incredibly complex process that is impossible to detect and rectify through bureaucracy.
impossible because? if it can be planned, then the plan can also be modified.
>Bureaucracies are notoriously corrupt, slow and inefficient.
I keep letting you get away with that word, but in fact we aren't talking about a capitalist bureaucracy, but about a socialist society planning its own activity. bureaucracy is corrupt, slow and inefficient because it has to control and manage a chaotic network of millions of private enterprises working on their own account. none of this applies to a socialist society.
>This isn't capitalism it's state tyranny.
no, it is capitalism. capitalism is established and sustained by state force. the state defending the right to private property, making large-scale investments in fixed capital to improve the competitiveness of national capitals, keeping the unemployed out of the streets and fit to take up work again once the demand for labour rises again through the welfare state etc., etc. is all an integral part of the capitalist economy. and it needs a heap of work from lawmakers, bureaucrats, law enforcement, etc.
>You would have no monopolies or bureaucratic processes.
free market competition leads to monopoly and needs conditions that must be constantly sustained by state bureaucracies. you can always separate the good side from the bad side in your head and pretend that the bad side of capitalism is not capitalism, but that won't change the fact that in reality they're parts of a single whole.
>A true capitalist society does not do "bail outs". If you made bad investments, that's on you.
yes, a true capitalist society just lets the entire economy collapse because of some random bank run, just to teach a bunch of people who made a bad investment a lesson. lmao
>>21242594
>It is the behavior of the West which doesnt make sense
it's dictated by the USA who gain position by weakening Russia and Europe. and they're backed by the likes of Poland, because those are always getting screwed when Europe is run by a German-Russian pact rather than by Germany held on a leash by the US.

[Anonymous No.21242679]

>>21242662
Nuremberg was a complete joke, they tortured them. The motives behind action and what people say have always been two distinct things

[Anonymous No.21242681]

>>21242679
Commies would say the same about the Moscow Trials.

[Anonymous No.21242688]

>>21242677
>free market competition leads to monopoly
Doesn't seem to be the case when small businesses exist, and monopolies aren't inherently bad. Monopolies are not immune to market forces either. The Soviet Union monopolized much of its industry through nationalization, and still had deal with black markets, substitutes, and shortages that led to its collapse. In fact, many monopolies failed even without government intervention like Atari and Sears. You're very ignorant. And just spamming questions isn't a great debate tactic. It just shows you're gish galloping, and doesn't make you persuasive. You're only convincing yourself.

[Anonymous No.21242697]

>>21242667
>>21242667
Free trade is predicated on a specific balance of power. Control of Ukraine is anterior to questions of trade policy, it is on the level of fundamental power structures, specifically of NATO vs Russia. You're basically saying "if russia and Ukraine were ruled by the same people they could engage in trade".

[Anonymous No.21242725]

>>21242677
>wealthier in what terms?
Efficient production --> Abundance of goods --> Cheaper goods --> More purchasing power --> Wealth
>capitalism is established and sustained by state force....
Again that's not capitalism. The state propping up certain industries and coercively infringing upon property rights isn't capitalism. The only "capitalist" thing the state does is protect certain people's property, something which can just as easily be done by security companies or even individuals.
>free market competition leads to monopoly
No it doesn't. The reason a monopoly would fail under capitalism is it would face the same sorts of calculation problems that a socialist state would face. It would make bad decisions and would eventually be outcompeted.
The only reason monopolies exist is because the state prevents the circulation of elites. John D Rockefeller managed to attain a monopoly over the oil industry in the US by getting the state to put up all sorts of barriers to entry and protect his company over others'. Before that, he had many competitors, and when he tried to buy them out they would just take the money he gave them and start up a new oil company.
Now, if you want to compete with Big Oil, you would face so many barriers to entry, so many bought-off politicians, that you would never even get started unless you were already part of the elite club. In a free market society, the elite club would change members all the time.

[Anonymous No.21242753]

What does Marxist spammer even plan do with his life. I don't see the advantage of coming to 4chan. Its not making people communists, and its not helping you achieve your political aims. You certainly don't have the reading, or writing skills, to get into Law school. And you definitely don't have the skills to be a politician. What do you even do for a living? You're still in college I bet.

[Anonymous No.21242786]

>>21242725
>Again that's not capitalism. The state propping up certain industries and coercively infringing upon property rights
There are no property rights without state power.

[Anonymous No.21242805]

>>21242786
Waving a pointy stick at someone approaching your mud hut is property rights

[Anonymous No.21242827]

>>21242608
>Use-value is not distinct from value. This is just a tautology
because? are you saying they aren't distinct because both words contain the segment "value"?
>Its pretty clear you haven't read Marx.
It's pretty clear that you haven't:
>It is only by being exchanged that the products of labour acquire a socially uniform objectivity as values... This division of the product of labour into a useful thing and a thing possessing value [i.e., use-value and value -- DISTINCT CONCEPTS, btw] APPEARS in practice ONLY WHEN exchange has already acquired a sufficient expression and importance to allow useful things to be PRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING EXCHANGED

>This isn't true - some Jews were used as slave labor
so the argument against it being economic is that they were used for labour? bravo!
also, do you think they were used for slave labour AFTER being killed? if it's before, then how does that contradict that the fact that they were killed once they became useless for production? obviously, as far as they could be used for labour, they were. and when they were no longer needed, they were disposed of.
>you essentially saying it wasn't economical for to waste time killing unproductive people
you'll have to re-state this
>Russia has lost more troops, more money from sanctions, and the collapse of Kherson puts even more economic pressure woes on Russia
miscalculating and losing a war doesn't prove that its aim wasn't to win and gain.
>He could have easily gotten those minerals through trade
first, in your world theft wouldn't exist, because the thieves could just get the stuff through trade. epic.
more seriously, the EU was in the process of removing Ukraine from Russia's trade orbit. the 2014 coup was over the Ukrainian president refusing to pick the EU over Russia for trade, and he was subsequently ousted. so Russia was losing the possibility of using Ukraine through trade. that's exactly why they chose to rob it by force instead.
>Russia isolating itself from the world market, worth trillions of dollars, is not worth a few minerals in a country that is already rich coal and lithium, retard.
according to this logic, Hitler was an ardent anti-fascist who wanted to rid Germany of Nazis, because after all that was the effect of the war he started. sorry anon but this is fucking brain damaged.
>>21242611
>banking mafias
>proletarian revolutions
is that supposed to be the proof that their anti-semitism wasn't ultimately based on economic matters? great job bro
>>21242646
>Putin said himself
well if Putin said it then it must be true! I'm not that anon but I also take everything I said back
>>21242688
>Doesn't seem to be the case when small businesses exist
so does monopoly
>You're very ignorant
about what?
>And just spamming questions isn't a great debate tactic
people are making assertions that I want to hear justification for. it's pathetic to be so afraid of a slightest challenge to the point that you have to dismiss this as "a tactic"

[Anonymous No.21242840]

>>21242786
Protecting property rights is a legitimate act of state power but propping up certain companies and quashing competition is not and it's not capitalist. Even if the state were necessary for property rights, it doesn't follow that anything any state ever does is capitalist.
The state as it exists in the modern West is not capitalist. It is oligarchical, it works in the interests of corporations and the elites who own them, stopping competition by putting up barriers to entry and making laws in favour of these elites. In a free market elites will always circulate because they'll be constantly outcompeting each other.

[Anonymous No.21242843]

>>21242072
Intrinsic value means the true worth of the object. Without that you can’t discuss the real worth, only what a particular person values the object as. This is meaningless for the Marxist, since now exploitation becomes a matter of point of view, ie subjective. Value is subjective and personal, hence labor being value would also be subjective and personal
>no, if two objects aren't of equal value, then won't be regularily exchanged for one another.
This is false. Objects get exchanged with no regard for their true worth, only the personal motives of the actors involved. A buyer can trade X amount of corn for Y amount of beer even if he thinks X corn is worth Z beer. This is also a case of NoTrueScotsman. “A true trade only occurs when they are of equal value”. The abstract principle of equal value is being used to dictate the particularities of the phenomena, not the other way around

[Anonymous No.21242848]

>>21242667
>The solution isn't to do away with private ownership but to do away with gangsters of all types -- including statesmen -- who want to infringe on others' property rights
what impetus would there be to dissolve one's state? look at what happened to somalia, the dissolution of their state simply meant exploitation of their natural resources by whoever desired them. even if there was somehow a global push to unilaterally dissolve the state, what stops the next hierarchy from forming? any answer requires an even grander and more powerful entity than the one that has just been done away with

[Anonymous No.21242850]

>marxist greentext tranny is here
>there's a libertarian in the thread for him to argue with
Buckle up everybody, we're headed for the bump limit

[Anonymous No.21242880]

>>21242848
You don't have to necessarily do away with the state. You can just have minarchist governments which enforce the law and protect against invaders and restrict immigration and nothing else. Such states do not impose tariffs or interfere in the market. Since there's free trade they don't have any incentive to go to war.

[Anonymous No.21242928]

>>21242725
>Cheaper goods --> More purchasing power
in socialist society, there's no buying and selling, and consequently no "purchasing power".
also, wealth is not just abundance of goods. that's only true for capitalist society that reduces wealth to money. but in socialist society wealth becomes many-dimensional. it can include a clean environment, more free time, and so on.
also, if according to your measure more fentanyl and more bottles alcohol = more wealth as long as the junkies have the ability to pay, then I just don't see a reason to care for that measure.
>The state propping up certain industries and coercively infringing upon property rights isn't capitalism
it is, since this is done to in order to strengthen the national capitalist economy.
>The only "capitalist" thing the state does is protect certain people's property
in your childish fantasies maybe, but in the real world it has to do much, much more to keep the economy running and to ensure that its capitals are competitive on the world market.
>It would make bad decisions and would eventually be outcompeted.
that's wishful thinking. a monopoly can afford making bad decisions, because of how much control and capital it has, because of the advantages of scale, etc. it's the small businesses that get swallowed by the monopolist when they make a slightest misstep, or even if they behave perfectly but the cyclical crisis just happens to come at an unfortunate moment.
>The only reason monopolies exist is because the state prevents the circulation of elites
no, the reason is that bigger capitals have a competitive advantage over smaller capitals.
>>21242843
>Intrinsic value means the true worth of the object.
no, the true worth is extrinsic, social. things aren't worth anything in itself, because you only have exchange of privately owned things when there's a society.
>Value is subjective and personal
no, it's objective. things used by society are exchanged in proportions dictated by their relative costs of production, which are a fact of nature and of given technological level of production in different branches.
>Objects get exchanged with no regard for their true worth
no, they're exchanged according to what it costs to produce them. if you can get much more than that for something, then people start producing more of it and undersell one another to grab the free money, until this increased supply brings the price all the way down to the objective cost of production.
>A buyer can trade X amount of corn for Y amount of beer even if he thinks X corn is worth Z beer.
I said "regularily exchanged" and you reply with "A [single] buyer". this is exactly where your misunderstanding lies. even if a single seller can sell something for much above its value, the supply-demand mechanism described by me above will ensure most transactions are made around the objective value, and not with arbitrary exchange proportions.

[Anonymous No.21242974]

>>21242928
>in socialist society, there's no buying and selling
Wait what?

[Anonymous No.21242987]

>>21242974
>The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at. By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying. But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[Anonymous No.21242994]

>>21242987
>when buying and selling disappear
How exactly is this going to happen unless you just outlaw it in which case you're being more tyrannical than what youre setting out to solve

[Anonymous No.21243011]

>>21242994
it's going to happen through society taking all means of production into common possession and using them to produce and distribute according to a common plan

[Anonymous No.21243026]

>>21242928
>more free time,
If society has abundance of goods then people can choose whether they want to work shorter hours because they won't starve doing so. If society is poor then people will have to work longer whether they like it or not.
>it is, since this is done to in order to strengthen the national capitalist economy.
That's not free competition or capitalism. That's artificially inflating a corporation through violence.
>no, the reason is that bigger capitals have a competitive advantage over smaller capitals.
Look at Standard Oil. They attained monopoly-like status because of the state propping them up. If the state had not imposed tariffs upon oil imports, if the state had not granted them "patents" over certain technologies, if the state had not imposed barriers to entry for new entrepreneurs getting in the oil business, do you think Standard Oil would have become as big as it was? Of course not. Their rise to monopoly-like status was facilitated by state violence.
Even if a company becomes extremely large, they can only stay large under a free market system if they continually outcompete everybody else. A monopoly simply could not deal with the massive complexity of the market, responding to all new technologies and developments in consumer demand. They will eventually be outcompeted.

[Anonymous No.21243050]

>>21242928
Value is subjective. The uses by individuals or society doesn’t make it objective. Value is what people want, which is personal. There is no true value of corn or beer. It is personal and reflected by individuals wants. Your use of “regularly” is the issue. Trades occur between individuals, a personal activity. There is nothing “regular” about that. Not surprising a Marxist only sees in abstractions. Please provide us a proof of the true and absolute value of corn - ie the absolute price one should sell it for

[Anonymous No.21243112]

>>21243026
>If society has abundance of goods then people can choose whether they want to work shorter hours because they won't starve doing so.
true. I mean in socialist society. under capitalism, the purpose is not well-being but maximum production of surplus value, so shorter hours are compensated by either increased intensity or by longer hours for some suckers on the other side of the globe.
>That's not free competition or capitalism.
it is competition of capitals. it may not measure up to your ideal, but that's what it is in real life.
>>no, the reason is that bigger capitals have a competitive advantage over smaller capitals.
>They attained monopoly-like status because of the state propping them up.
because a bigger US capital had a larger competitive advantage on the world market compared to what a international level is still capitalist competition. and the competitors won't avoid using state power for their competitive advantage just so that the reality of capitalism can measure up to your personal ideal of it.
>Their rise to monopoly-like status was facilitated by state violence.
state violence aimed at competitive advantage in the world markets
>>21243050
>Value is what people want, which is personal.
it's not exactly personal. for example, the fact that I need food is not personal but and objective fact of human biology.
but we aren't talking about the fact of existence as value, but about the QUANTITIES of value. and the quantities are what things exchange for, which is determined by what it takes to produce them.
>Trades occur between individuals, a personal activity. There is nothing “regular” about that.
yes, nothing regular about hundreds of millions of loaves of bread being sold every single day at predictable prices
>Please provide us a proof of the true and absolute value of corn - ie the absolute price one should sell it for
I don't know what its value is, I only know that it has it. and this has nothing to do with what you should sell it for -- you should sell it for as much as you can get for it

[Anonymous No.21243123]

>>21242987
>In Communist society
>Communist society
>COMMUNIST
You said that about socialist society.

>>21243050
>Trades occur between individuals, a personal activity.
Didn't know that British Petroleum and Amazon are individuals.

[Anonymous No.21243130]

>>21243123
>Didn't know that British Petroleum and Amazon are individuals.
What do you think they are, spooky ghosts

[Anonymous No.21243131]

>>21243026
>>21243112
bigger US capital had a larger competitive advantage on the world market compared to what a smaller US capital would've had. and capitalist competition at international level is still capitalist competition*

[Anonymous No.21243137]

>>21243123
>You said that about socialist society.
if we confine our conversation to real things, then the two are the same thing

[Anonymous No.21243143]

>>21234502
Christcuck kys.
>bible
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.21243153]

>>21234662
>kibutz'im in Israel
They are working very well, and are very rich too.

[Anonymous No.21243163]

>>21243112
The motives for selling bread are not regular but individual and personal. The need for food is also personal and subjective, since the desire to exist is not absolute but dependent on the individual. People can value not eating, such as fasting or to lose weight etc.

So you’ve admitted you can’t establish the objective value of corn. Please provide the objective and absolute value of a commodity. Without that than one cannot dictate what one should trade it for, thus it is not possible to determine surplus value or exploitation
>>21243123
Individuals make the decisions. Organisations are not autonomous machines

[Anonymous No.21243167]

>>21234922
>neo-classical
Tf is that mean.. kys.

[Anonymous No.21243174]

>>21243137
>if we confine our conversation to real things, then the two are the same thing
We'd have to also exclude magical stateless capitalism as well, though.

>>21243163
>Individuals make the decisions
Didn't know that the board of directors is an individual.

[Anonymous No.21243189]

>>21243174
>has never worked on a team
It is made up of them, and their individual choices affect the total choice of the board. This is common sense

[Anonymous No.21243213]

>>21243189
>It is made up of them, and their individual choices affect the total choice of the board.
That's exactly the point though. The outcome of collective action doesn't equal the outcome of any individual action within that collective - so company A ends up buying product B while on the committee that made the decision, not a single individual wanted to buy product B - neither on the personal level, as they are using company money for company purposes and not for themselves using their own resources - nor on the collective level, as everyone wanted to buy product B for the company - they wanted either C or D, and B was the compromise between the two.

The collective is made up from individuals, but it's a distinct entity. A mob is not the same thing as just 100 guys. To argue otherwise is reductionism of retarded degree - after all, it's not individuals making the decisions, it's the neurons in their brains.

[Anonymous No.21243233]

>>21243163
>The motives for selling bread are not regular but individual and personal.
no, they're regular, since they're predominantly the same exact motive. in capitalist society people are born into, you need money to access means of life. and if you have enough money, it pays to use it to take exclusive possession of the means to making some things that people would buy, for example bread, and then to sell them for more than it costs to make them and use that income to produce them again. and this is the single motive for selling bread that dominates in capitalist society. which makes it pretty regular.
>The need for food is also personal and subjective
don't go full retard
>People can value not eating, such as fasting or to lose weight etc.
fasting is a temporary abstention from eating, which means that the other side of it is the need for food.
>Please provide the objective and absolute value of a commodity
I don't know what the exact value of any commodity is, since the magnitude of value only appears under the form of prices. I can look at the average price of a loaf of bread and a Cessna airplane, and tell you with virtual certainty that the former has a lower value. but I can't give you exact magnitudes of the values, since they aren't something that expresses itself directly.
>Without that than one cannot dictate what one should trade it for
why would I want to dictate that? see >>21242987. communism doesn't dictate prices according to which things are bought and sold, but abolishes buying and selling.
>thus it is not possible to determine surplus value or exploitation
it's not possible to determine specifically their exact magnitudes. so? what's the next step of your master argument?

[Anonymous No.21243250]

>>21243112
>state violence aimed at competitive advantage in the world markets
You and I are operating under a completely different definition of capitalism. Capitalism for me is property rights and free market. Violent state intervention in the market is directly opposed to capitalism under my definition. Coercion is not competition. The system we live under is an oligarchy/plutocracy, not free market capitalism.

[Anonymous No.21243279]

>>21243213
Neurons and people aren’t the same. Bad equivalence right there. A collective action is an abstraction of individual human behavior. A persons behavior is NOT an abstraction of the behavior of atoms, since abstractions and concepts (reason) are not composed of atoms/neurons yet are a factor in human decision making. When a team takes a course of action, the individual thoughts and feelings of the members are a part of that action, resulting in a cohesive/destructive team. These subtleties make the success of an organisation. When we punish bad organisations, we really punish the individuals in that organisation, since they are the ones ultimately responsible

[Anonymous No.21243280]

>>21243250
>Capitalism for me is property rights and free market. Violent state intervention in the market is directly opposed to capitalism under my definition. Coercion is not competition. The system we live under is an oligarchy/plutocracy, not free market capitalism.
That just inevitably leads to a conclusion that both of you faggots actually want exactly the same (non-existent) thing - no more gobermint aka capital concentration) - just in different flavours, while being equally pissed about the status quo.

Whoever both of you blame for said status quo, they won - because instead of dealing with them, you are bitching at each other.

[Anonymous No.21243287]

>>21243279
> A collective action is an abstraction of individual human behavior.
I just explained how it isn't tho. Collectives can and frequently do arrive at decisions which none of the individuals actually agree with on their own.

[Anonymous No.21243300]

>>21243280
Minimal government is the idea. Government is not the same thing as capital concentration via wage labor. It extracts taxes, which is a fundamentally different structure than the profit a capitalist makes.

[Anonymous No.21243308]

>>21243300
>It extracts taxes, which is a fundamentally different structure than the profit a capitalist makes.
Extraction of taxes is the inevitable outcome of capital concentration - government is a tool created by the ruling class, not an troon-dimensional entity attacking human minds or a collective stupidity fart.

[Anonymous No.21243331]

>>21243233
>predominately
But they are not the same. The particulars of what and when people eat is personal. If it is objective, then people would be obligated morally to eat. This is not necessarily true. A person can choose to eat or to not. It is always a personal decision
>don't know what the exact value of any commodity is, since the magnitude of value only appears under the form of prices.
You don’t know because the value is not objective, it is personal opinion between buyer and seller.
>but abolishes buying and selling.
Abolishes the very means through which personal value manifests, which is why marxists (you) have no method of determining what the value of corn is
>s not possible to determine specifically their exact magnitudes. so? what's the next step of your master argument?Without proof of absolute value, you cannot determine if there is worker exploitation, ie there is no objective basis for a workers revolution. Of course if you were to provide that absolute value of beer or corn than maybe you’d achieve what marxists failed to do for over 100 years.

[Anonymous No.21243335]

>>21243308
Yes and no. You can view the government as simply owning the country and extracting rent, but this misses the altered incentives and dynamics in various forms of states, not least of which is the ambiguity of power in Republican and democratic states. Tyranny is more easily accomplished in such conditions than a king raising taxes to ridiculous rates or attempting to deny the rights of lords and peasants, because it is less visible when the origin of policy is obscure and it is couched in various humanitarian ends. When you add in sheer alchemical trickery like the federal reserve it becomes even more of a free for all to loot the commons.

[Anonymous No.21243341]

>>21243287
A collective can’t make a decision. Decisions are done by individuals. What you call a ‘decision’ is the manifestation of individual’s actions. If collectives could make decisions then it’d make sense to punish bad collectives without punishing any of its individual members

[Anonymous No.21243349]

>>21243331
>s not possible to determine specifically their exact magnitudes. so? what's the next step of your master argument?
Without proof of absolute value, you cannot determine if there is worker exploitation, ie there is no objective basis for a workers revolution. Of course if you were to provide that absolute value of beer or corn than maybe you’d achieve what marxists failed to do for over 100 years.

[Anonymous No.21243389]

>>21243250
>You and I are operating under a completely different definition of capitalism.
yes, you operate under the petty-bourgeois ideal of capitalism, containing only the good sides a wannabe-millionaire petty businessman sees in it; things that he can link directly to his own benefit.
and I operate under what an economy based on capital is in real life, including all the things required to establish and sustain it, some of which can be very disagreeable to individual capitalists, especially to those in the disadvantaged position of small capitalists.
>Violent state intervention in the market is directly opposed to capitalism under my definition
the very existence of the market is a constant violent state intervention guarding the monopoly of private property of each of the market participants. it is a precondition for capitalism.
>Coercion is not competition
competition involves a constant coercion to stay within the rules of the competition enforced by the state to keep the economy functioning.
>The system we live under is an oligarchy/plutocracy, not free market capitalism.
the reality of the ideal of "free market capitalism" is "oligarchy/plutocracy". this is it
>>21243331
>>21243349
>The particulars of what and when people eat is personal
THAT they eat definitely isn't. hence what I said: the fact that food constitutes value in this society is not exactly a personal matter.
and the particulars can't be just reduced to "subjective and personal" either. they depend on the geographic conditions of a given region etc.
>If it is objective, then people would be obligated morally to eat.
they're obligated biologically to eat. is biology less objective than objective morality?
>You don’t know because the value is not objective
no, I don't know because the magnitude of value only appears under the form of prices.
>which is why marxists (you) have no method of determining what the value of corn is
no, it's why Marxists have NO NEED for determining exactly what the value of corn is.
the reason they have NO METHOD of determining exactly what the value of corn is, is because value only appears indirectly as price.
>Without proof of absolute value, you cannot determine if there is worker exploitation
no, the only thing I can't determine is its exact magnitude. I can determine it exists simply through observing that in this society one can appropriate surplus product by investing a sum of money and just sitting on his yacht waiting for it to multiply.
>Of course if you were to provide that absolute value of beer or corn than maybe you’d achieve what marxists failed to do for over 100 years.
no, Marxists never aimed at this, nor have they ever aimed at anything that would have this as a prerequisite. so it has nothing to do with their achievements or lack thereof.

[Anonymous No.21243402]

>>21243389
>the very existence of the market is a constant violent state intervention guarding the monopoly of private property of each of the market participants. it is a precondition for capitalism.
Yes violence is needed to defend private property because there are thieves about; but the state today doesn't just defend private property from people who violate the non-aggression principle. It also violates the principle itself. What would be better therefore is either private security firms offering protection of property or a minarchist state which does not interfere in the market.

[Anonymous No.21243418]

>>21243402
I understand what would better align with your ideals. nobody care

[Anonymous No.21243419]

>>21243389
Food is a personal matter. The choice of when and what to eat is personal. Biological necessity is not morality. That is philosophy101, or humes guillotine. Absolute value and common wants are also not the same thing. You are mistaking the two as being equivalent. Absolute value is a moral imperative, ie what one is obligated to value.
> I can determine it exists simply through observing that in this society one can appropriate surplus product by
You use the word surplus, yet cannot determine the absolute value of corn or labor. Thus you have no way of determine what is “surplus” other than you’re own opinion.
>Marxists never aimed at this
Of course they did, through dictating property rights, what one can own and sell. This is dictating what one ought to value.

[Anonymous No.21243493]

>>21243419
>Biological necessity is not morality
wow no shit
>You are mistaking the two as being equivalent. Absolute value is a moral imperative, ie what one is obligated to value.
I don't care about this then. I'm not equating it to anything because I don't care about it one way or another.
what I said was that the fact that people need to buy food, and consequently that it embodies value, is not exactly personal, but determined by broader facts.
I also said that the magnitudes according to which different things used by humans exchange on the whole is determined by what society must expend to produce each unit, which is also a matter of objective facts.
as for your morality, I don't care about it at all. it's not relevant here.
>>21243419
>You use the word surplus, yet cannot determine the absolute value of corn or labor
the two are unrelated. I can use the word surplus because the observed possibility of appropriating products of labour without working necessitates that the people who do work produce more of them than they get for their own use. and this "more" is what in English we can call a surplus.
>Of course they did, through dictating property rights, what one can own and sell. This is dictating what one ought to value.
what does this have to do with magnitudes of value in exchange? if you're talking about stuff like dictating prices, then obviously you can set them however you want (that's what it means to dictate them). it's not like you're prevented from this by not being able to discover some "absolute value". and if the assumption is that one can set it arbitrarily, then why were you asking me for the concrete amounts? you aren't making a lot of sense.

[Anonymous No.21243625]

>>21243341
>A collective can’t make a decision
Yes it can.

> If collectives could make decisions then it’d make sense to punish bad collectives without punishing any of its individual members
You mean like the entirety of corporate and international law?