The Dumbest Mother Fucker to Ever be Taken Seriously

[Anonymous No.21235772]

Literally contributed nothing of value.

[Anonymous No.21235776]

>>21235772
That's not Thomas Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.21235786]

>>21235776
Aquinas at least formalized the cosmological argument
Might be small potatoes but it is SOMETHING
Marx said nothing
Thought nothing
And made NOTHING known that wasn’t already said explicitly before him

[Anonymous No.21235810]

fag

[Anonymous No.21235825]

>>21235786
>And made NOTHING known that wasn’t already said explicitly before him
Name one thinker who has that's not Greek.

[Anonymous No.21235842]

>>21235825
Darwin and Newton

[Anonymous No.21235848]

>>21235842
I meant philosophers, not people who have made actual contributions to humanity.

[Anonymous No.21235850]

>>21235825
>tell me what 1+1 is without saying 2!!
Go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.21235851]

>>21235772
Not true. Economic and class factors within historiography would not be given their due weight if not for his radical stance of economic and class determinism forcing historians to take them seriously.

[Anonymous No.21235859]

>>21235772
He gave the elite class something to think about in the ages where they've become increasingly irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.21236206]

>>21235772
>Literally contributed nothing of value.
Yes, he didn't work for wages. Nice spotting.

[Anonymous No.21236213]

>>21235772
le superstructure faec

[Anonymous No.21236237]

He was a loser who had to be sponsored by ANOTHER man. He was a financial cuckold. Couldnt hold a job, he was so retarded.

[Anonymous No.21236304]

>>21235825
Barrack Obama

[Anonymous No.21236341]

>>21235772
That's not Thomas Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.21236348]

>>21236237
>He was a loser who had to be sponsored by ANOTHER man. He was a financial cuckold.
The financial cuckold was the guy sponsoring him.

[Anonymous No.21236353]

Marx is taken seriously but he is not
What gives?

[Anonymous No.21236354]

>>21236237
Weren't the most famous philosophers jobless?

[Anonymous No.21236359]

>>21235842
Pre socratics came up with what Darwin came up with only couple thousand years earlier.

[Anonymous No.21237340]

>>21235772
He literally contributed a theory of value

[Anonymous No.21237344]

>>21235772
ME NO LIKE MARX! HE LEFT WING! ME NO LIKE MARX! HE LEFT WING!

[Anonymous No.21237359]

>>21235825
Kant.

[Anonymous No.21237368]

>>21235772
Go back to /pol midwit. You have been filtered.

Anyone who does not actively engage or respect marx is a pseud.

[Anonymous No.21237395]

>>21237344
The funny thing is he wouldn't be considered left wing at all if he was alive today. He has no idealism and has a strictly material analysis of society which is absent from all so called leftists in the west, it's more so rightists offering material critiques and voting in self interest whereas leftists have convoluted moral impetus and ideal behind all of their speeches and policy goals.

[Anonymous No.21237412]

>>21237368
lmao Marx is total shit tho

bro you can admit it. nothing will happen if you admit it.

[Anonymous No.21237417]

Most guys that hate Marx think everyday people should be wage slave cucks

[Anonymous No.21237425]

>>21237395
Marxist-leninism was rarely friendly to other leftists. Communist as a term exists because they viewed social democrats as their enemies.

[Anonymous No.21237432]

>>21235772
>>21235851
>>21237340
>>21237344
>>21237368
>>21237417
>you should help us take down the elite, because they're taking wealth from you, it's in your self-interest!
>then we can be kind and brotherly and distribute all their wealth equally!
Marx is for gullible retards. Never read him and never will. A line of thought built on a broken foundation is not worth engaging with

[Anonymous No.21237434]

>>21237417
Why won't you realize the only alternative for them is to turn into druggies or couch potatoes?
Everyday people are absolutely fucking worthless. They're the laziest, dumbest, most disgusting, shameless, selfish and unhelpful pieces of shit who we need to keep on a fucking leash and threatened with death to manage.

[Anonymous No.21237449]

>>21237432
Gullible retards are those who genuinely believe there is nothing of value from Marx.

Even the greatest pseuds in history, the fascists, based their entire clown ideology on a broken version of marx and marxism

[Anonymous No.21237454]

>>21237432
Equality isn't a marxist goal, that's more of a libtard sentiment. Abolishment of class is all Marxism is.

[Anonymous No.21237461]

Modern twitter roasties who say they're marxists don't give a shit about equality.

[Anonymous No.21237470]

>>21237449
The only thing of worth in Marx is his deconstruction of capitalism literally anyone with a brain is able to replicate in a vacuum by the time they're fifteen. This fat fuck never ascended past that stage. And what makes you think this fat parasite's lazy and thoroughly erroneous interpretation of Hegel is something other ideologies have based themselves on? Why do lazy marxists always think history begins with their tiny red book cope of parasitism?

[Anonymous No.21237497]

>>21237454
>Abolishment of class
Same thing. "Classes" are nothing but arbitrary cutoffs of wealth and ownership of property

The entire marxist motive for revolution is self-interest, yet the goal of abolishing classes, expects that people will suddenly be harmonious and selfless enough to not form concentrations of wealth and property again. That the workers, once in power, will all be coordinated, righteously furious and merciless enough to kill everyone who tries to hoard slightly more wealth than the rest.

Even though it's happened every single time in history, because marxists are right in one way, the typical man is driven moven mostly by self-interest.

Yet there is nothing fundamentally different about marxism, from other revolutionary ideologies in history, just self-interest at the core of it. But only marxists are foolish enough to expect their selfish ideology to have selfless results

[Anonymous No.21237701]

>>21235772
>>21235786
>>21236237
>>21237395
>>21237412
>>21237432
>>21237434
>>21237470
>>21237497
>t. never read marx and too much of a midwit to even attempt to

[Anonymous No.21237704]

>>21237454
The abolishment of class is even dumber than liberal equality, which at least limits it to equality before the law and accepts there will always be classes.

[Anonymous No.21237721]

>>21235786
>And made NOTHING known that wasn’t already said explicitly before him
Is this really a point against Marx? Marx is notable for synthesizing many different ideas and schools of thought from his time into a coherent copherent and developing those ideas further, I don't think anyone celebrates Marx for the originality of the component ideas found in his philosophy, but they certainly do for his ability to bring so many disparate concepts together.

[Anonymous No.21237737]

>>21237701
back to leftypol with your projections

[Anonymous No.21237761]

he makes this board seethe so he's inherently based

[Anonymous No.21238629]

>>21235772
Who?

[Anonymous No.21238667]

>>21235772
He was wrong in three ways. The first is that he though the community/state could manage capital as well as the capitalists could. The second is that he thought the conditions of the industrial revolution would never improve. And lastly, he thought that society would continue to segregate into bourgeoisie and proletariat. This is clearly not the case in capitalist countries where there is a wide range of economic mobility.

[Anonymous No.21238702]

>>21238667
Is this bait?

[Anonymous No.21238705]

>>21238667
Moron.

[Anonymous No.21238720]

>>21235772
If Marx was spellt 'Marcks' he wouldn't be even half as popular.
How does a marxist respond to this claim?

[Anonymous No.21238745]

>>21235772
If Marx was spellt 'Merx' he would have been a lot more popular in Ireland.
How do irish 'people' respond to this claim?

[Anonymous No.21238760]

>>21238702
>>21238705
I think I struck a nerve by getting it completely right. Glad to see you have no argument against what I said.

[Anonymous No.21238766]

>>21237737
he literally said he didn’t read it lol

[Anonymous No.21238775]

>>21237497
Class distinctions in marxism are based on what role within the system of production one fills you mong, not income level as you're understanding it.

The proletarian sells his labour power and works on the capitalist's machinery in order to recieve sustenance. There are proletarians who make more money than some petty bourgeois, its about the function not the income.

Please please please read up on something before you so brazenly critique it.

[Anonymous No.21238785]

>>21238702
>>21238705
What's so raging inducing about that anon's post? Also, I must point out that leftists in general have this tiresome shtick of not bothering to explain the details of their arguments, premisses and positions without jargon to anyone, specially to those who are not naturally inclined to agree with them. It's not unlike a mystery cult where only the initiated are allowed breadcrumbs of exposition and even then, exposition shrouded by needless specialized vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.21238788]

>>21238785
That's not incidental, its because their ideas dont actually make sense if just stated plainly.

[Anonymous No.21238791]

>>21235776
>>21236341
Holy cringe

[Anonymous No.21238808]

>>21235786
>>21238791
What's so raging inducing about that anon's post? Also, I must point out that papists in general have this tiresome shtick of not bothering to explain the details of their arguments, premisses and positions without jargon to anyone, specially to those who are not naturally inclined to agree with them. It's not unlike a mystery cult where only the initiated are allowed breadcrumbs of exposition and even then, exposition shrouded by needless specialized vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.21238816]

>>21236353
He's literally impossible to refute so those in power would just rather nobody know he ever existed. Even normies who read Progress and Poverty get a redpill straight through the forehead like a diamond bullet

[Anonymous No.21239109]

>>21238785
>>21238788
>>21238760
>>21238667
Because that anon literally never read marx. Literally all three of his points are wrong or never mentioned in Capital.

>The first is that he though the community/state could manage capital as well as the capitalists could

Marx never says this. I will simplify everything very much, so you should not take this as literal fact, but this is only to show just how stupid you are. A true pseud midwit.
The closest thing to this is that marx mentions that the proletariat or the worker creates value while the bourgeoise does not continously create value and necessarily sees the value of the "initial investment" become lower and lower as the worker creates value for the bourgeoise which he profits from/gets capital from. Another thing this moron could be thinking of would be when marx mentions in his writings or letters that it is in the SELF-interest of the worker to have the full value of the capital he creates for the bourgeoise. Another thing he could be thinking would be when marx talks about man's inclination to the arts or to personal passions rather than to the work he gets under capitalism, but if this is what anon is referencing then it is a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what marx means.

>The second is that he thought the conditions of the industrial revolution would never improve

Marx never said this. One thing somewhat close would be that marx believed that the proletariat in the first world (in the colloquial definition, not mao's) would be the first to start revolution, but this is why marxists stress the importance of lenin as he talks about capital and its expansion and exploitation beyond the home market to other countries yet to be exploited by this capital, which is a very important expansion on marx's idea of expansion and accumulation. For this I recommend Imperialism, the Newest Stage of Capitalism.

>And lastly, he thought that society would continue to segregate into bourgeoisie and proletariat. This is clearly not the case in capitalist countries where there is a wide range of economic mobility.

The second sentence means this clown anon is confusing the colloquial definition of classes and thinks the the borgouisie and the proletariat are the "haves and have-nots" when in fact the classes of borgouisie and proletariat specifically refer to the relation of the individual to the system of production. And "society" has in fact continued to segregate into bourgeoisie and proletariat as they are the two main classes under capitalism. How often do you see literal serfs anon? Peasants? Is there a literal aristocracy? Do they give you land to cultivate so they can consume the products of your labor, or do they in fact exploit your labor to accumulate capital which can be turned into money if need be like the borgouisie? Do you think there are more hunter-gatherers or less anon?

This is the issue of those who criticize marx, they did not read him.

[Anonymous No.21239133]

>>21235850
So you agree and you're upset by that? Angry retard alert

[Anonymous No.21239173]

>>21237470
I don't know why you sound so smug, you've read neither marx nor hegel

[Anonymous No.21239185]

>>21237470
I don't know why you sound so smug, you've neither read marx nor hegel

[Anonymous No.21239200]

>>21235772
huh?

[Anonymous No.21239303]

Who?

[Anonymous No.21239573]

Why this man still relevant than

[Anonymous No.21239618]

>>21239573
jews and naive wh*tes

[Anonymous No.21239773]

>>21239109
>The closest thing to this is that marx mentions that the proletariat or the worker creates value while the bourgeoise does not continously create value
You just admitted to me marx says this. If the bourgeoise do not create value then the community/state could manage capital just as well. Otherwise they are obviously creating value by their management of the capital.
>Marx never said this
"the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him." - communist manifesto
clearly this isn't the case anymore.
>this clown anon is confusing the colloquial definition of classes and thinks the the borgouisie and the proletariat are the "haves and have-nots"
I never said that. There is no clear difference between worker and capitalist in capitalist countries. There are plenty in the middle who both work and own capital.
>A true pseud midwit.
Marxists are the most braindead retards on this planet. Your fat neckbeard Jew is the definition of 'pseud'.
>red*it spacing
go back already. why are you even here?

[Anonymous No.21239827]

>>21239773
>t. Filtered pseud

[Anonymous No.21239834]

>>21235772
>value
but he worked hard for it?!

[Anonymous No.21240153]

>>21239827
projection.

[Anonymous No.21240202]

>>21236353
We may never know.

[Anonymous No.21240384]

>>21235850
>That republic quote
>Used to make fun of a greekoid
Made me chuckle.

[Anonymous No.21240440]

>>21237368
Marx sucks ass. He stole his ideas from Jesuits writing 100 years before him, he was in contact with rabbies who thanked him for subverting the gentiles. His popularity among dumb, fat, unfuckable college dikes and people under 18 is extremely significant. I wouldn't even say he is midwit. His critique of capitalism is midwit, everything else is mentally retarded nigger tier.

[Anonymous No.21240446]

>>21239618
>t. Shitskin whose faggot immigrant parents ran from a communist shithole
Your skin is the colour of poo. White skin turns gold in the sun, yours ("melanated) stops sunlight from entering your body.

[Anonymous No.21240454]

>15 year old marxtards mad that people with triple-digit IQs and life experience don't buy into their jewish fag cult
Kek

[Anonymous No.21240572]

>>21236353
I wonder (((why)))...
On a side note, I wonder how the housing market is holding up :^)

[Anonymous No.21240851]

>>21237497
>expects that people will suddenly be harmonious and selfless
it doesn't at all, thats why marx calls for a dictatorship of workers to suppress parasites and build up industry to a point that society can sustain its population

[Anonymous No.21241256]

>>21235772
Hey easy there buddy
He is kinda based since he got some communists killed

[Anonymous No.21241532]

>>21239109
>One thing somewhat close would be that marx believed that the proletariat in the first world (in the colloquial definition, not mao's) would be the first to start revolution
Which wasn't exactly wrong, it's just that those revolutions failed.

He also very much amended his thought on the matter in his later writings, see his materials on Africa written within the latter decade of his life.

[Anonymous No.21241728]

>>21240851
>to suppress parasites
Like the jew Marx himself?

[Anonymous No.21241733]

>>21235772
anon the entire 20th century was a direct response to Marx

[Anonymous No.21241751]

>>21236359
Evolution != Natural Selection, dumbass.
Transmutation of species was the easy part; the notion of natural selection and its evidences collected in "Origin of the Species" are Darwin's innovation.

[Anonymous No.21241871]

>>21239773
>reddit spacing

Here is the great irony of the whole reddit-spacing thing. It's actually 4chan spacing. It predates reddit and was used on 4chan first. You guys are literally too young to actually know this and the userbase has grown quite rapidly during your time, enough to drown out old memes. Your generation is not actually conscious. You are entirely unaware of the real history because you were not there for it, so you look to Reddit, which actually inherited it from 4chan, and you confuse where it came from with where you are seeing it now.

It would be like going to America, eating spaghetti, going to Italy, eating spaghetti, and then saying "lul American cuisine". You are all confused children and just do not really know what you are talking about or even understand where things come from.

But the spacing itself was born from 4chan, largely because of how poorly walls of text display and because it was easier to read that way. If you doubt this, just take a look at the Stanford 4chan archives from 2008. https://purl.stanford.edu/tf565pz4260

While yes, Reddit existed in 2006, but no one from that time period would have used it. Meanwhile, 4chan had existed for several years at that point and the spacing convention had already been adopted. You guys were just not there, I was. I can prove this if I go through that archive, find my old tripcode, and show that spacing convention in use even then.

[Anonymous No.21241894]

>>21237432
> Never read him
> He's bad trust me
> *Repeats some /Pol/ bullshit
Lol

[Anonymous No.21241896]

>>21239773
anon there are a few arguments you could have made here, but the ones you ultimately chose demonstrate that you got filtered

[Anonymous No.21242030]

>>21241894
>t. 15 years old

[Anonymous No.21242031]

>>21241871
This is redditspacing>>21241894

[Anonymous No.21242144]

>>21235772
How tf can an idiot like you be taken seriously for a bad thread with no contribution whatsoever. Kys op, for real.

[Anonymous No.21242151]

>>21236354
OP is just a retarded drump-hitler supporter, and should khs.

[Anonymous No.21242168]

>>21235772
Absolutely yes.

[Anonymous No.21242219]

>>21236354
Because philosophy is a joke, and should not be taken seriously. Its just sophistry.

[Anonymous No.21242224]

>>21237368
Marx was a pseud. Every philosopher is a pseud. Philosophy is for people filtered by STEM, and need a cope for their life.

[Anonymous No.21242362]

>>21235772
>t. I heard someone on Fox News use Marxist as a pejorative once

[Anonymous No.21242395]

>>21242224
you're right about philosophy, but Marx was a scientist who overcame philosophy

[Anonymous No.21242477]

>>21242224
>t. stem undergrad who will never make a contribution to his field
Nearly all great scientists were philosophers as well, but it would be unreasonable to expect a pseud who hates marx to actively engage with his science instead of trying to sound "smart" and "objective".

[× I V R I V S ࿇ N E M O × !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21244044]

He was merely yet another ignoble, pervertable force with potential for worldwide influence that was scouted out, and utilized, by the perpetual enemy, for the purpose of further abolishing the Catholical extension of divine arrangement within the spatiotemporal range of the world; many such cases, especially since the eighteenth century.

[Anonymous No.21244047]

>>21235772
There's still a huge cult, as large as mohhamad and jesus

[Anonymous No.21244048]

>>21235772
>The Dumbest Mother Fucker to Ever be Taken Seriously
IIIIS -This OP.
Why did anyone even respond??

[Anonymous No.21244359]

>>21244044
you're a /lit/ tripfag

[Anonymous No.21245473]

>>21235772
To whatever fag was in this thread >>21234006

Arguing that value has objective. Please post the objective value of corn. It doesn’t even need to be in terms of price. All that gibberish while dodging the basis for muh “worker exploitation” and “muh surplus”.

[Anonymous No.21245488]

>>21237368
>thinks intrinsic value can be determine through exchange value
He was pretty retarded

[Anonymous No.21245523]

>>21237470
>The only thing of worth in Marx is his deconstruction of capitalism literally anyone with a brain is able to replicate in a vacuum by the time they're fifteen
>one of the most influential thinkers of the past 200 years
>hurr i reconstructed his entire theory as a teen in a vacuum, me grug was raised in cave far from culture
>>21237497
>arbitrary cutoffs of wealth and ownership of property
Marx describes in excrutiating detail many objective material differences that separate the classes, they are anything but "arbitrary", you absolute clown.

[Anonymous No.21245535]

>>21238785
>>21238788
>I have not read Marx and I will never read Marx because I hate Marx
>but here's my opinion on everything Marx wrote that I've never read
>now explain everything he wrote to me, if you want to convince me why I'm wrong about what I said about what he wrote that I haven't read
>if you won't, you're an obscurantist mystery cult
I am in awe.

[Anonymous No.21245556]

>>21235772
>correspondence PHD
>collaborates with Industrialist, who has to ghost write most of your shit
>marry a Rothschild scion
Marx & Engels laughed at the true believers, "Put a bunch of scientific sounding shit, the bougies will love it." Bakun was right.

[Anonymous No.21245611]

>>21237701
Copenigger. I >>21237395 own the collected works. YWNBAM

[Anonymous No.21245924]

>>21238667
where there was*

[Anonymous No.21245928]

>>21245611
>doesn't own MEGA
>owns
Noice one, just as bourgeois as Marx, and as great a failure.

[Anonymous No.21246151]

>>21237434
You're #1 on the list to be leashed, because anyone who espouses such views is spouting pure projection.

[Anonymous No.21246267]

>>21237395
their "moral impetus and ideal" is also merely an expression of the interests of the middle classes for a more equitable and nice capitalism where they aren't getting screwed by big capital and crises. you say you own the collected works >>21245611 but you don't understand the basic facts about the petty-bourgeoisie and about what ideology is
>>21245473
>It doesn’t even need to be in terms of price.
value doesn't appear in any other way
>while dodging the basis for muh “worker exploitation” and “muh surplus”
knowing the exact value of any given commodity isn't the basis for deducing exploitation. you can deduce it from the simple fact that you can appropriate products of labour without performing any labour as long as you have a property title to a good piece of land or a large sum of money

[Anonymous No.21246287]

>>21246267
Responding to trolls is exactly as bad as posting troll posts.

[Anonymous No.21246390]

>>21246287
for someone who understands Marx, the majority of posts relating to Marx on /lit/ are indistinguishable from trolling

[Anonymous No.21246392]

>>21246267
>you can deduce it from the simple fact that you can appropriate products of labour without performing any labour as long as you have a property title to a good piece of land or a large sum of money
This is not exploitation unless you demonstrate the objective value of labor. Please post the objective intrinsic value of labor. It doesn’t need to be in terms of $$$, but then again you couldn’t even do it with corn. Labor has no inherent value, so a land lord making bank from his renters is nothing more than that

[Anonymous No.21246421]

>>21246392
>This is not exploitation unless you demonstrate the objective value of labor
it is, it's an appropriation of product of work without performing work, which is what Marxists call exploitation
>Please post the objective intrinsic value of labor
Engels:
>Labour, as value-creating activity, can just as little have a particular value as heaviness can have a particular weight, heat a particular temperature, or electricity a particular intensity of current.

>Labor has no inherent value
true, see above
>so a land lord making bank from his renters is nothing more than that
if he doesn't work, he can appropriate products of work just because he owns a title to property enforced with state violence

[Anonymous No.21246428]

>>21246390
If you've actually read Marx you ought to be able to differentiate them. For example, anyone familiar with value will be aware that it is socially constituted in the relations between men as a relation of production, not an "object."

[Anonymous No.21246436]

>>21246428
that's great, but it has nothing to do with distinguishing morons from trolls

[Anonymous No.21246448]

>>21246421
>is, it's an appropriation of product of work without performing work, which is what Marxists call exploitation
Labor has no inherent value, so there is no exploitation, there is simply dissatisfaction of the worker, who feels he is cheated. There is no need to perform work in order to appropriate the benefits of work, because work has no intrinsic worth. It’s not by nature good nor does it entitle one anything.
>>21246428
Value is not bound to production or work. People do not value things because of the amount of “work” done. Water is produced by nature, no labor involved, yet it is valued by people.

[Anonymous No.21246538]

>>21246436
If they don't read they're a troll.
If they evince reading, but their reading is incredibly poor, they're a moron. Our friend here evinces having read no political economy what so ever.

[Anonymous No.21246571]

>>21242395
>Never worked a single day in his life
>Worker please listen to me!!
Anyone who takes marx seriously is a midwit and a trustfundbaby loser just like him.

[Anonymous No.21246579]

>>21246571
Tell me about Nietzsche's successful authentic being.

[Anonymous No.21246624]

>just read more
This is the depth of marxist argumentation, indistinguishable from trolling

[Anonymous No.21246659]

>>21246624
Avoided Chapter 1 didn't we?

[Anonymous No.21246668]

>>21246448
>Labor has no inherent value, so there is no exploitation
there is exploitation, since there's a class of people that can systematically appropriate the product of other's work without themselves working. the reason you give for why there supposedly isn't exploitation is irrelevant
>There is no need to perform work in order to appropriate the benefits of work
yes, that's what I said. that's how it is for aristocrats in feudal society or for big financial capitalists in bourgeois society. that's what exploitation consists in.
>because work has no intrinsic worth
no, it's not because of that. in a communist society work won't have intrinsic worth either, but there will no longer be a ruling class that can appropriate social product without working. so the fact you cite is not the reason. the reason is an organization on economy that involves a class with a legal claim to the product of work of its subjects.
>It’s not by nature good nor does it entitle one anything.
agreed, but again: irrelevant.
>Water is produced by nature, no labor involved, yet it is valued by people.
no, with water too it is the labour that gives it value. proof: if water were like breathable air, if you could just consume it immediately, then you wouldn't have to pay for it. its value would've been 0, just like the air that you need to breathe. a typical capitalist doesn't need to advance additional capital for buying the air for his workers to breathe while they're in the workplace. but water is different: you have to find a source, you have to bring the water to a point of consumption, which all takes labour. that's the labour that imbues water with value.
>>21246538
>If they don't read they're a troll.
or they're a moron who genuinely believes the 5 minute video "why Marx was wrong" gave them all the necessary information to own Marxists online
>If they evince reading, but their reading is incredibly poor, they're a moron
or they're a troll who purposefully evinces reading, but then also throws in bunch of silly made up stuff just to fuck with people

[Anonymous No.21247041]

>>21246668
>since there's a class of people that can systematically appropriate the product of other's work without themselves working.
This is not exploitation. Their work has no inherent worth, so whatever the worker can negotiate for himself is what he gets.
>that's what exploitation consists in.
Again, not exploitation but merely the feeling of being cheated. Work has no inherent worth
> but there will no longer be a ruling class that can appropriate social product without working
Yet in every single one that’s tried there always is one. That is reality
>agreed, but again: irrelevant.
Now you contradict yourself since you think the capitalist not working is relevant. Make up your mind.
>: if water were like breathable air, if you could just consume it immediately, then you wouldn't have to pay for it.
You don’t always have to pay for it. You can drink from a river. No work involved. When you lay you’re not paying for the labor, but negotiating with the seller who themselves may or may not care about their own labor in processing the water. These subtleties of an exchange are lost on the Marxist.

[Anonymous No.21247059]

>hurr durr you need to read a chapter I just read
Marxist retardation never ends

[Anonymous No.21247357]

>>21247041
>This is not exploitation.
that's what Marxists refer to as exploitation. complaining about it won't change this fact
>Their work has no inherent worth
I already explained why this isn't relevant
>so whatever the worker can negotiate for himself is what he gets
and all bachelors are unmarried
>Again, not exploitation but merely the feeling of being cheated
no, it's a separate thing from the feeling of being cheated. you can have part of the product of your work taken from you without feeling cheated, and you can feel cheated without having a part of the product of your work taken from you.
>Yet in every single one that’s tried there always is one
a society divided in classes is not communist society
>Now you contradict yourself since you think the capitalist not working is relevant
not working is relevant to the fact of appropriating product of work without working, since this obviously involves the concept of not working.
what's not relevant is the fact that work isn't by nature "good" or doesn't entitle one to anything. you can have a class of people able to appropriate products of work without working regardless of whether work is or isn't "good" by nature.
>You don’t always have to pay for it. You can drink from a river. No work involved.
yes, that's exactly the point I'm making. you can just drink it from a river for free, it has no value. when you _are_ paying, it's not the water that has value, but the labour of bringing that fragment of the river to you, so to speak.
>These subtleties of an exchange are lost on the Marxist.
on the contrary, Marxists are well aware that the seller only has to care about money, not about what underlies it. the fact that underlying it is the labour necessary to get the water to market is independent of the seller's opinions.

[Anonymous No.21247374]

>>21247357
>>21247041
>it's not the water that has value, but the labour of bringing that fragment of the river to you, so to speak
or I should say: it's the end product that has value, and this end product is not simply water flowing in a river. it's rather collected, packaged and transported water. so the product has labour embodied in it.

[Anonymous No.21247385]

>>21235772
>nothing of value.
Please! He spent his whole life working on his shit analysis. And in the theory of value he described that means it's EXTREMELY valuable, regardless of whether it's ever done anything good for anybody, or instead just tricked imbeciles and destroyed things of actual merit.
Pay attention!

[Anonymous No.21247427]

>>21235776
You're an idiot. Aquinas was the most atheist Christian of his time.

[Anonymous No.21247524]

>>21247357
The point is that their definition of exploitation is a joke, since labor has no inherent worth so cannot be used whatsoever in demanding wealth from others, namely the capitalist. The very definition is wrong and means nothing, all while containing more implications without proof. It all demands that labor have value, which is does not because no process has intrinsic width, going back to the initial point of commodities having intrinsic value.
> you can have a class of people able to appropriate products of work without working regardless of whether work is or isn't "good" by nature.
Well if it’s not a problem then it’s not exploitation. Exploitation means to be wronged and cheated
> the fact that underlying it is the labour necessary to get the water to market is independent of the seller's opinions.
There are many things underlying the price, not merely the labor, which Marxist’s are so fixated on. Again, labor has no intrinsic worth so it doesn’t matter
> so the product has labour embodied in it.
Labor is not a part of the essence of water. It is not an essential trait of water. It does not embody it.

Maybe using the common meaning of exploitation and value would make it clear to you that Marxism is retarded, rather than a contrived meaning built around people gaining without working, as if working is what entitles one to gains (it does not).

[Anonymous No.21247647]

>>21247524
>The point is that their definition of exploitation is a joke
it's not a joke, it refers to a real phenomenon where the working class is used like a resource to derive economic benefit from, i.e., exploited
>since labor has no inherent worth so cannot be used whatsoever in demanding wealth from others
irrelevant. exploitation asserts the fact of appropriation of product of work without work. it doesn't demand anything from anyone.
>The very definition is wrong and means nothing
it is correct and it means that there's a class of people that can systematically appropriate the product of other's work without themselves working.
>all while containing more implications without proof
such as?
>It all demands that labor have value
no it doesn't. it states that products of work are appropriated by a class that doesn't have to work. it doesn't demand anything.
>Well if it’s not a problem then it’s not exploitation
yes it is. I can exploit a mine without it constituting a problem.
>Exploitation means to be wronged and cheated
how is a copper mine wronged and cheated when I exploit it? it only means that I use it as a resource to derive economic benefit from.
>There are many things underlying the price, not merely the labor
when taken in general, it comes down to labour
>Labor is not a part of the essence of water
yes, I agree, that's why the water you drink from a river is free, valueless. but labour was used in producing the bottle of water you buy in a store. that's why that one has value.
>Maybe using the common meaning of exploitation and value would make it clear to you that Marxism is retarded
no, everything I said agrees with common meanings. to exploit (economically) is to use something as a resource and derive (economic) benefit from it. value is what a product is worth, what underlies the quantity of money you need to pay for it when you go out and buy it.
>meaning built around people gaining without working, as if working is what entitles one to gains
you can gain without working regardless of whether working entitles one to gains or not

[Anonymous No.21247687]

i think marxian economics is dogshit but you have to be braindead to think he added nothing of value to philosophy, sociology, and/or historiography

[Anonymous No.21247716]

>>21247647
Different anon here, you are a fagget. Don't bother replying, won't read.
>where the working class is used like a resource to derive economic benefit from, i.e., exploited
Ah so then when the working class derives a benefit from other classes as a resource (eg. public goods paid by taxes, reading a book, getting advice) this is also exploitation? Just making sure we're not using loaded words to imply wrongdoing.
>exploitation asserts the fact of appropriation of product of work without work.
What? That's not at all what you JUST said! Still, this makes learning anything exploitation of the upper classes, since the knowledge was aquired through experimentation and research the laborer didn't do.
>it states that products of work are appropriated by a class that doesn't have to work.
But in actuality the products are bought by the nonworking class. Also, in actuality, modern capitalists don't admit the idle rich, everybody has to do "work" of some kind. Pretending jobs aren't work just because they're cushy is pretty bad faith.
>how is a copper mine wronged and cheated when I exploit it? it only means that I use it as a resource to derive economic benefit from.
You're back to this, but you must realize you're using language calculated to piss off careless thinkers and imply wrongdoing.
>when taken in general, it comes down to labour
This is completely fucking wrong. There's no sense in which it's true.
>that's why the water you drink from a river is free, valueless.
What the fuck are you talking about idiot? If water is valueless, is no value lost when I poison all the earths water, then? In fact, I guess I must be increasing its value because of the labor involved making and distributing the poison!
>no, everything I said agrees with common meanings.
Wrong and not even internally consistent. Only Marxists use the terms like this ("exploitation" for utilization, "value" for sale price or cost to produce interchangeably as convenient) and they are only used like this to rile up emotional dummies.

[Anonymous No.21247752]

>>21247647
> it refers to a real phenomenon where the working class is used like a resource to derive economic benefit from, i.e., exploited
Being used as a resource is not exploitation. Otherwise everything humans do would be exploitive, making the marxists cause moot.
> exploitation asserts the fact of appropriation of product of work without work.
No it does not. Exploitation is when you are cheated. One is not cheated because their boss makes more money than them.
> such as?
I meant to say moral implications, namely those that occur through exploitation and the intrinsic value of labor. If labor has value, which it does not, one is obligated to value objects based off the amount of labor in it. This is of course absurd but a consequence of viewing labor as the source of value.
> it states that products of work are appropriated by a class that doesn't have to work.
Which assumes work matters (ie has value and meaning) in the first place. Of course we know it does not
> how is a copper mine wronged and cheated when I exploit it?
This is not the same meaning as applied to people. Exploiting people entails wronging them and cheating them. Copper can’t be wronged. Here exploit just means use. Does the Marxist think merely using people is an issue? If so all organisations are exploitive.
> when taken in general, it comes down to labour
No it does not. Labor is not an intrinsic quality of water. We do not see labor when we see water.
> that's why that one has value.
And the water in the river has just as much value depending on the person
> to exploit (economically) is to use something as a resource and derive (economic) benefit from it. value is what a product is worth, what underlies the quantity of money you need to pay for it when you go out and buy it.
These are not the common uses, a exploitation refers to cheating when applied to people, doesn’t matter how economists twist the term, and value always requires an actor to value it.

[Anonymous No.21247755]

define value

[Anonymous No.21247777]

>>21247755
Value is when you want a thing, the object of one’s desire. An object “has value” to a subject if the subject wants it.

[Anonymous No.21247790]

>>21235772
>>21235786
Based anti-marxist.

[Anonymous No.21247806]

>>21237701
You have to go back.

[Anonymous No.21247928]

Its funny how marxists gets btfoed in every forum that isnt censored to shit. Maybe that should be a wake up call to you paheic commies.

[Anonymous No.21248003]

>>21247716
>Ah so then when the working class derives a benefit from other classes as a resource (eg. public goods paid by taxes, reading a book, getting advice) this is also exploitation?
yes, except none of the examples you give are that. I'd go into that immediately, but I have too much to respond to, so I won't for now.
>That's not at all what you JUST said!
I'm not going to capture the entire phenomenon with all its details and nuances every time I give a simple definition of it. especially when I have to repeat the definition 20 times to some wooden head. that's just not feasible and it's not reasonable to expect that from me.
>this makes learning anything exploitation of the upper classes, since the knowledge was aquired through experimentation and research the laborer didn't do
no, because 1) labourer doesn't put the hypothetical upper-class inventor to work, but the capitalist does put the labourer to work, and 2) the knowledge isn't a resource in the relevant sense. a part of it doesn't get consumed when one more person is introduced into the circle of knowers. contrary to a worker or a copper mine, who are used up as they're exploited. a worker has a limited health and life, and a copper mine has a limited amount of copper ore.
>But in actuality the products are bought by the nonworking class
labour-power is bought, not the products. but this is beside the point anyway: I said just that the products are appropriated. I didn't specify the means.
>Also, in actuality, modern capitalists don't admit the idle rich
it's the reverse: old capitalists didn't. now big capitalists delegate work to various agents.
but this is irrelevant. even for those that do work, there's profit just from the ownership title to capital, independent of work. for example, Musk can earn money for working as a CEO of Tesla. but he also earns other money just for owning Tesla stocks. he could stop working for Tesla and he would keep getting a share in Tesla's profits until the end of time. this is the part of the income we're concerned with here. the part earned from work is irrelevant and I don't deny it exists.
>Pretending jobs aren't work just because they're cushy is pretty bad faith.
as explained, this is not what I was saying. I'm not saying work isn't work. I'm saying that you get profit from capital itself REGARDLESS of work. the two are separate
>but you must realize you're using language calculated to piss off careless thinkers and imply wrongdoing
it's calculated to express what's happening, i.e., a class of people being put to use as an economic resource.
if it pisses someone off, boo hoo
if it implies wrongdoing to you, it's because you bring in your own moral belief that putting people to use as economic resources is wrong. but your moral preconceptions are not on me.
>There's no sense in which it's true.
the sense in which is true is that a price of a commodity expresses the necessary abstract labour time it takes to reproduce that commodity.

[Anonymous No.21248033]

>>21247716
>If water is valueless, is no value lost when I poison all the earths water, then?
some water already exists within a ready product in which labour is embodied, so value is lost there. as for the rest, no existing value is lost.
>In fact, I guess I must be increasing its value because of the labor involved making and distributing the poison!
if you then bottle the water and there's social demand for poisoned water, then yes, you in fact are increasing its value: poisoned water will in that case be more expensive than regular water, because it'll require extra labour of making and injecting the poison.
>Only Marxists use the terms like this ("exploitation" for utilization, "value" for sale price or cost to produce interchangeably as convenient)
no, it's consistent with existing dictionary definitions
>>21247752
>Being used as a resource is not exploitation
it is. "exploit: make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)."
>Otherwise everything humans do would be exploitive
like what?
>Exploitation is when you are cheated.
a copper mine isn't cheated when it's exploited
>I meant to say moral implications... If labor has value, which it does not, one is obligated to value objects based off the amount of labor in it.
you keep confusing economic value with moral value. if socially necessary abstract labour is the substance of value, then products representing an amount of socially necessary abstract labour will generally command a price instead of being free like air. morality doesn't enter here
>Which assumes work matters (ie has value and meaning)
no, it just assumes that work exists
>Exploiting people entails wronging them and cheating them
you can keep repeating this however much you want, but you know well that's not what I'm referring to here
>Copper can’t be wronged
but a copper mine can be exploited
>Does the Marxist think merely using people is an issue?
issue for whom? it's you and the other anon who immediately assume exploitation of people must be morally wrong here, not me. I didn't say anything about morality at all
>Labor is not an intrinsic quality of water
yes, that's why only the product made with labour in capitalist society and featuring water has worth, and water in the river is free
>And the water in the river has just as much value depending on the person
no, everyone can drink it for free, regardless of their faith and favourite band. so it has value of 0 for everyone
>a exploitation refers to cheating when applied to people
that only happens when people additionally bring in their moral judgment that exploiting people is unfair. but I'm talking about the meaning before the moral preconceptions are applied. obviously you can't expect a scientific definition to include moral preconceptions sometimes connected to the term.
>and value always requires an actor to value it.
sure, the fact that you need to pay money for something means that there in fact are actors valuing it.

[Anonymous No.21248056]

>>21248033
>nooo you can’t just exploit workers. That’s bad!
>no lol exploitation has no moral connotation.
Exploit when applied to people involves cheating. Stop dodging that fact. Without the moral issue of exploitation the Marxist has no cause. You are simply exchanging “to utilize” with “to exploit” when no Marxist treated these two terms equally. You’re fucking with words right now. I suppose the marxists of the 20th century had no issue with exploitation since after all the term is simply synonymous with “utility”.

[Anonymous No.21248070]

>hurrr durrr but the dictionary says this is what X means. Who cares how people actually use the term
Midwit tier response

[Anonymous No.21248163]

>>21248056
>no lol exploitation has no moral connotation.
obviously it does, but a CONNOTATION is something that's evoked in some people IN ADDITION to the content of the main meaning. if you bring in your moral judgment that the thing is bad, you're obviously going to make a moral association every time the term is brought up. but to then turn this around and insist that because of that my own moral judgment and the pretense to its objectivity must be entailed when I express the concept is completely unwarranted. it's pure projection of your own morality.
>Exploit when applied to people involves cheating
if it implies cheating to you, it's because you bring in your own moral belief that putting people to use as economic resources like you would use a copper mine might be unfair to them. but your moral preconceptions are not my responsibility.
>You are simply exchanging “to utilize” with “to exploit” when no Marxist treated these two terms equally
"to utilize" doesn't imply a resource. you can, e.g., utilize information. "to exploit" in the relevant sense implies a resource, something that gets used _up_. why are you losers so hung up on semantics instead of responding to the content of what I'm saying? (I suspect why)
>You’re fucking with words right now.
the irony. the entire argument is about someone trying to argue semantics, insisting that I'm saying something that I'm not, simply because they have secondary associations with the word I used. and I'm the one fucking with words.
>>21248070
I cited the dictionary because it roughly reflects how people use the term. what other proof should I have used? if you want to show it's not used that way, then go ahead. and without a dictionary, because apparently that's bad. I'll hold my breath

[Anonymous No.21248176]

>>21247385
>And in the theory of value he described
Which one? He goes through like five in the first chapter of Capital alone.

[Anonymous No.21248179]

Marx and his faggotry was refuted by the trads

[Anonymous No.21248183]

>>21248179
Literally nothing but rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.21248191]

>>21248183
Indeed, there is no substance in anything marx said, so it was purely rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.21248289]

>>21235772
>invented the political system 20% of the worlds population lives under
>”contributed nothing of value”
if you hate his ideas that’s fine but acting like they aren’t important is just retarded and ignorant

[Anonymous No.21248297]

>>21248289
He was just a prophet.

[Anonymous No.21248329]

Almost all of the objections against marx would be solved if the dumbasses read just the first volume of Capital, but they would rather argue than learn.

Actively disliking marx is one of those activities exclusively reserved for pseuds or midwits, like scientism, or evolutionary psychology

[Anonymous No.21248348]

>>21248329
Yeah, people like Foucault and Baudrillard were real dumdums.

[Anonymous No.21248362]

>>21248348
Obviously meant the posters in this thread

[Anonymous No.21248367]

>>21248348
yes

[Anonymous No.21248925]

>>21248003
rare actual marxist on /lit/ all that's missing is a sinistra or libcom link

[Anonymous No.21248943]

>>21240851
it's good to add that the "build up industry to a point that society can sustain its population" part has long since been achieved

[Anonymous No.21248962]

It says a lot when his ideas are implemented in shitholes such as Russia

[Anonymous No.21249133]

>>21235772
Marx is a great many awful things, but anyone who calls him “dumb,” “unoriginal,” or “trivial” is showing his own ass.
His synthesis of materialism and revolutionary thought was completely original has completely shaped the post-WWII world — even, unwittingly, the thought of many of his self-proclaimed enemies.

[Anonymous No.21249460]

>>21248163
>Exploitation: the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work
Once again, exploitation implies cheating and immoral behavior. One google search would keep you from repeating your nonsense.
>why are you losers so hung up on semantics instead of responding to the content
Because you are fucking with the meaning of words
>cited the dictionary because it roughly reflects how people use the term
Lol no you didn’t. Every anon here just look up the term. Of course, this not necessary since anyone not an ESL will know what exploitation means. It has an immoral meaning. Marx is suggesting exploitation of the worker is bad. He does this by giving labor inherent value, which labor does not have.

[Anonymous No.21249464]

>>21235772
Correct, he didn't contribute any value, he contributed a theory fo value.

[Anonymous No.21249463]

>>21249460
>It has an immoral meaning. Marx is suggesting exploitation of the worker is bad. He does this by giving labor inherent value, which labor does not have.
Go read Volume 1.

Also your theory about how words acquire meaning is fucking retarded. Read the last 150 years of semiotics.

[Anonymous No.21249467]

>>21248329
The very first chapter Marx tries deriving intrinsic value of a commodity from its exchange value. He is retarded.

[Anonymous No.21249479]

>>21249463
>hurr durr just keep reading Marx over and over again
The depth of marxist thinking

[Anonymous No.21249488]

>>21249463
>gets shown the dictionary meaning
>noooo that’s not what Marx meant!

[Anonymous No.21249524]

>>21235772
it's amazing how easily people's opinions are controlled by the government

the tendency towards dramatically negative opinions of Marx definitely rolled around a little suddenly in history if you catch my drift

[Anonymous No.21249549]

Marxists:
>can’t demonstrate the intrinsic worth of a commodity as simple as corn
>can’t demonstrate the intrinsic worth of labor, the basis through which exploitation is derived
>can’t use the meaning of exploitation that applies to human beings. Uses a meaning that changes when convenient
>Believe water from a river has no value.

[Anonymous No.21249582]

>>21249549
Read volume 1. Actually read it. The value of labour is in the length of the working day.

[Anonymous No.21249593]

>>21249582
He will never read anything, much less think about its meaning.

[Anonymous No.21249627]

>>21235772
This is true, but I encourage his ideas because they result in the large-scale death of left-wing vermin, all of whom deserve torture, rape, and execution for the crime of being left-wing.

The key to understanding political philosophy in general is that nobody believes anything for reasons as banal as "theory," they are driven by genes. Multiple studies have confirmed this. You can now have an IQ look at your face, and controlling for race AND age it can guess with higher accuracy than a human what your overarching political beliefs are. Well your facial features are about as genetic as it gets. (Left-wing people are also uglier.)

Left wing people are naturally criminalistic, stupid, highly emotional, and have difficulty noticing patterns. There's also a pronounced lack of disgust reflex, reduced threat response. In other words, left wing people are innately gullible. They're bad at recognizing threats, they cannot tell that they are being rused like the stupid dupes that they are.

This is why the "true believer" types all ended up being stitched up into bodybags while still shrieking and pleading for mercy and then being buried alive. Karl Marx is the ideal example, actually, of an incredibly stupid person who wrote all this ignorant dreck without once considering that he was basically demanding a global revolution in a world without food stability.

Only a Leftoid could be that uniformed, that childish, so as not to consider that this would almost certainly kill tens if not hundreds of millions of people. Fortunately they were mostly Leftists, so they weren't actually human.

[Anonymous No.21249629]

>>21249524
Around the time his ideas killed a hundred million people, yes.

[Anonymous No.21249647]

>>21249582
>>21249593
That is Marx’s conjecture, which he never proves, just as he could never prove the existence of the intrinsic worth of a commodity. It is quite literally all his opinion.

[Anonymous No.21249652]

>>21249647
What constitutes "proof"?
Are any sciences held to a standard of "proof"? (You may not use Feyerabend, only Popper.)
Are any social sciences held to a standard of "proof"?

Are you proud of your ignorance, or do you sincerely believe yourself to be well read?

[Anonymous No.21249653]

>the value of Einsteins labor is in how much time it took him to prove his theory.
Yep, makes sense

[Anonymous No.21249662]

>>21249652
>anon doesn’t know what prove means
Proof as in he never demonstrates why labor has intrinsic worth and why that worth is bound to the amount of time worked. Of course, I’m sure you have the proof and you’ll enlighten us in your next post.

[Anonymous No.21249663]

>>21235772

[Anonymous No.21249668]

>>21249653
>Moreover, only so much of the time spent in the production of any article is counted, as, under the given social conditions, is necessary. The consequences of this are various. In the first place, it becomes necessary that the labour should be carried on under normal conditions. If a self-acting mule is the implement in general use for spinning, it would be absurd to supply the spinner with a distaff and spinning wheel. The cotton too must not be such rubbish as to cause extra waste in being worked, but must be of suitable quality. Otherwise the spinner would be found to spend more time in producing a pound of yarn than is socially necessary, in which case the excess of time would create neither value nor money. But whether the material factors of the process are of normal quality or not, depends not upon the labourer, but entirely upon the capitalist. Then again, the labour-power itself must be of average efficacy. In the trade in which it is being employed, it must possess the average skill, handiness and quickness prevalent in that trade, and our capitalist took good care to buy labour-power of such normal goodness. This power must be applied with the average amount of exertion and with the usual degree of intensity; and the capitalist is as careful to see that this is done, as that his workmen are not idle for a single moment. He has bought the use of the labour-power for a definite period, and he insists upon his rights. He has no intention of being robbed. Lastly, and for this purpose our friend has a penal code of his own, all wasteful consumption of raw material or instruments of labour is strictly forbidden, because what is so wasted, represents labour superfluously expended, labour that does not count in the product or enter into its value. [17]
Chapter 7

Read cunt.

[Anonymous No.21249674]

>>21249662
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

[Anonymous No.21249675]

>>21235772
Yet he makes you seethe and make shit threads. How curious..

[Anonymous No.21249677]

>>21249479
to read something over and over again you have to have read it at least once

[Anonymous No.21249700]

>>21249668
you've already spoonfed more info than these retards deserve, just let them seethe at shit they're too lazy and incompetent to read

[Anonymous No.21249704]

>>21249668
>posts more of Marx’s hokey conjectures
I’m asking for proof, not elaboration on what Marx wrote. Nowhere here do we see a demonstration of labor having intrinsic worth, nor time being a factor in its worth.
>>21249677
>just keep reading Marx again and again
Yes we’ve heard this marxist argument before.

[Anonymous No.21249709]

>>21249704
it's not a argument exclusive to marxists, it's literally common sense that one should read the thing they're critiquing

[Anonymous No.21249719]

>>21249709
Critiques of Marx have read Marx dumbass. That’s why the “just keep reading him” gets old. Only one reading is enough to know he was full of shit.

[Anonymous No.21249726]

>>21249674
>noooo you can’t just use experience to confirm my hokey theory! If it’s not as rigorous as math it does count!

[Anonymous No.21249735]

>>21249719
Not him. It's "critics."

[Anonymous No.21249739]

>>21249735
spellcheck

[Anonymous No.21249790]

>>21249726
The gentleman doesn't understand the difference between "proof" and observation of the external world and drawing legitimate disciplinary conclusions. Reading Hume might be good for him. Reading might be good for him. For you I'd recommend being filled with stallion piss.

[Anonymous No.21249961]

>>21235772
>ITT

[Anonymous No.21250001]

Not a single person in this retarded thread has ever read a single page of Marx in their lives

[Anonymous No.21250015]

>>21250001
Why would anyone want to read a book written by one of the biggest dumbasses in our history that created one of the most stupid ideologies?

[Anonymous No.21250024]

[Anonymous No.21250028]

>>21250024

[Anonymous No.21250241]

>>21235825
Gilbert Ryle - Category mistake
Martin Heidegger - Dasein
Ibn Khaldun - Asabiyyah

[Anonymous No.21250270]

>>21247928
It should be more a wake-up call to the people who think Marxists are getting BTFO'd to read or even just watch some videos. Although I don't know I'm sure there are plenty of threads where Marxists do get btfo'd, there's all different types and stripes of them, and there's probably a lot of retarded ones. Just like there's a lot of retarded wehrboos and then some other Fascist types who absolutely fuck.

[Anonymous No.21250282]

>>21235772
The less sex you have as a male, the more appealing Marx is. Marx appeals to females because they are weaker and stupider than males by convention. Marx appeals to the elite, because they get to steal all your money on the way to a "stateless society". Marx is wrong because humans aren't something belonging to an exclusive domain, kingdom or phyla. Humans are a bipedal ape that excels at throwing and endurance running, with a tournament style process for sexual selection, like lions or deer. Our intelligence is an accident of the cognitive machinery necessary to throw accurately, and drive our bodies to run long distances. Any social theory not accounting for this, is horse shit. Marx is no exception. He's honestly more tiring to hear about at this point than Trump.

[Anonymous No.21250289]

>>21250001
You're in this thread too you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.21250485]

>>21249790
>look guys I read Hume!
So to prove Marx we now need to evoke the skepticism of Hume. Nice job changing the subject. I’m sure Marx himself shared the same doubt for his own program.

[Anonymous No.21250511]

>>21237368
>>21241894
>>21246428
>>21246538
>>21248329
>>21249463
>>21249582
>>21249677
>>21249709
>>21249790
>>21250001
>Just read more Marx until you agree
If anyone wonders what’s the need for reeducation camps, just check out these posters.

[Anonymous No.21250612]

>>21235772
It's ironic that people who complain about the government and media pushing progressive agendas have eaten up anti-communist propaganda so thoroughly ever since. Do you still believe the US is "freeing" countries all around the globe because of altruistic concerns about the people's freedom?

[Anonymous No.21250629]

>>21235825

kant

[Anonymous No.21250699]

>>21235848
Newton wrote that in a book called Natural Philosiphy, fag

[Anonymous No.21250708]

>>21235825
This is the argument of a brainless faggot who has never read any philosophical text in his life

[Anonymous No.21250844]

>>21235772
Read Marx

[Anonymous No.21250852]

>>21249663
It was the way to appear on a photography. Also why would Stalin be a mason? Perhaps in the transnational lodges. But in his country, he had total power. Marx criticized free-masonry literally in his writings. They are, according to him, Capitalism vanguard.

[Anonymous No.21250907]

>>21249460
>Once again, exploitation implies cheating and immoral behavior. One google search would keep you from repeating your nonsense.
pic related is the google search. see for yourself. this is roughly the definition I'm using. your problem is that you'd like me to use another definition, one that's morally tinged. but I have no obligation to use exactly the definition you want. moreover, we're talking science, which is another reason against employing the morally tinged definition over one that specifically concerns the process and not its moral evaluation.
Engels:
>According to the laws of bourgeois economics, the greatest part of the product does not belong to the workers who have produced it. If we now say: that is unjust, that ought not to be so, then that has nothing immediately to do with economics. We are merely saying that this economic fact is in contradiction to our sense of morality. Marx, therefore, never based his communist demands upon this

>>21249549
already debunked all of this throughout the thread.
>>21246267
>>21246421
>>21246668
>>21247357
>>21247647
>>21248003
>>21248033
>>21248163
come up with something better

[Anonymous No.21251225]

>>21250907
Exploitation when applied to human beings always involves unfair treatment. It is all in the google search. Your problem is your treating a moral issue as merely scientific. But value is not scientific whatsoever.
>obligation to use exactly the definition you want.
If you want to be consistent in meaning, then yes you do. Without the moral element, you’re simply replacing ‘exploit’ with ‘to utilize’. All human organisations ‘utilize’ other humans, so the Marxist critique has no distinct meaning. People use other people to achieve things? So what? The Marxist has no alternative because all alternatives involve the use (‘exploitation’) of human beings. IOW the Marxist critique of capitalism is a contradiction, unless exploitation has a moral meaning.
>come up with something better
You’re picking and choosing the meaning of exploitation when convient, unaware of the contradiction it produces. This is ‘bring scientific’ to the Marxist

[Anonymous No.21251235]

>>21250907

[Anonymous No.21251279]

>>21235772
Didn't he at least popularize historical materialism?

[Anonymous No.21251527]

>>21251225
>Exploitation when applied to human beings always involves unfair treatment.
that's your moral judgment. if you were some eco hippie, you'd say that exploitation of natural resources is also always immoral. but I'm not responsible for those judgments, they're not what I'm expressing and you can't project them on me. I'm using exploitation in the meaning of using as a resource to derive advantage, which is also a common meaning, as you proceed to prove yourself in your next post:
>>21251235
I'm using definition 2. thanks for proving what I said, i.e., that I am in fact using a common definition that can be found in a dictionary. as I said, your only problem is that I'm not using the particular definition you want. but I have zero obligation to do that. words typically have multiple common meanings, and you can use A common meaning without using every single common meaning simultaneously
back to >>21251225
>Without the moral element, you’re simply replacing ‘exploit’ with ‘to utilize’
no, "exploit" is different from "utilize", because it places special emphasis on using something specifically as a resource and specifically to create an advantage for yourself. the point is that the working class is used as an object and depleted, like a mine, and that the bourgeoisie thereby creates an advantage for itself over the working class, i.e., it amasses wealth, economic power that lets it keep the workers subjugated in such a relation. all of this nuance is better expressed with "exploit" over "utilize".
>so the Marxist critique has no distinct meaning.
I described the distinct meaning above and in earlier posts. you've performed a transparent slight of hand here: instead of taking the content of what I'm saying, of what I keep explaining, you take just the word I use to refer to all the content, you abstract from the content, you observe that without any content you might as well replace the word with a synonym, and from this you "deduce" that I said nothing distinct. but the only reason it seems that way is because YOU ignore the distinct things I said and decide to focus just on the word in abstract. this is nothing but a cheap rhetorical trick
>Marxist has no alternative because all alternatives involve the use (‘exploitation’) of human beings
see? you replaced all the concrete determinations with the abstraction "use". if you considered the content of what I was actually saying, then you wouldn't be able to say there's no alternative.
because obviously there is an alternative to there being a ruling class that can appropriate products of work without working: the alternative is there not being such as class.
so what do you do to prove that there isn't an alternative? you erase all this content of Marxism, reduce it to some abstract "use", and then triumphantly proclaim that Marxism has no content because there always be "use". this is such a ridiculously transparent sleight of hand that anyone with half a brain will see right through it

[Anonymous No.21251691]

>>21235851
exactly OPs point. dumbest mother fucker to be taken seriously

[Anonymous No.21252095]

>>21251527
>advantage
>subjugated
Holy shit you contradict yourself like a retard. These ARE moral valuations. If a worker is being treated unfairly, that is subjugation, ie the first meaning of exploitation. You continue to fuck with the meaning. Both the meaning of advantage and subjugation presuppose values. A worker who cares not for his boss amassing more money is not subjugated or at a disadvantage. You skirt around the moral element because you know you can’t prove it, just like Marx couldn’t. As was asked before, please provide the objective value of labor, otherwise all discussion of ‘advantage’ and ‘subjugation’ is a matter of personal values. And no, citing what ‘Marx meant by exploit’ isn’t an argument.

[Anonymous No.21252104]

>>21251527
>uses exploit like the verb ‘to use’
>bitches and moans when his cause now means nothing.
Marxist logic. Let’s stretch the meaning of terms, tucking moral presumptions within them, and hope no one notices

[Anonymous No.21252145]

useful idiot, that's the value

[Anonymous No.21252157]

>>21249488
Language is defined by its users not by the jews who write the dictionary.

[Anonymous No.21252173]

>>21252157
I know this. However, the faggot insists on using the dictionary meaning, so I provided it

[Anonymous No.21252273]

>>21235772
>yes

[Anonymous No.21252321]

>>21252095
>>advantage
>>subjugated
>These ARE moral valuations.
absolutely not. you can, for example, say that getting a red card in a football match gives the other team advantage. this is true and doesn't involve moral valuations.
>If a worker is being treated unfairly, that is subjugation
it's your moral judgment that subjugation is unfair. for a racist, for example, subjugation of black people might be completely fair, because they were just put below white people in the natural hierarchy by god.
you can discuss subjugation in abstraction from the moral judgments different people have of it.
>You continue to fuck with the meaning.
no, you continue to project moral judgments onto things I'm saying which don't contain them. you're probably a midwit who can't discuss any controversial subject because he immediately gets morally outraged and can't put his emotions aside.
>Both the meaning of advantage and subjugation presuppose values.
they presuppose that humans produce things that satisfy their needs, and which, as private property, give people the social power to compel others to do things for them, as well as serve as means to increase this power. but this doesn't conflict with anything I've said.
>A worker who cares not for his boss amassing more money is not subjugated or at a disadvantage.
he is. a football team short of a goalkeeper is at a clear disadvantage even if it doesn't care about winning the game.
>You skirt around the moral element because you know you can’t prove it
there's no moral element. there's only you desperately trying to turn this into a moral squabble, because you're unable to dispute anything at the level of facts.
>As was asked before, please provide the objective value of labor
as was answered above, labour has no value just like heaviness doesn't have weight.
>>21252104
>gets told how the use of "exploit" gives emphasis to specific things that the use of "use" doesn't
>is unable to read because of severe mental disability
>proceeds to ignore the answer and respond by repeating the same thing that was just refuted
chud logic. let's derail the conversation into semantics and try to further derail it into moralistics (because you can't address the actual content) and hope no one notices.

[Anonymous No.21252353]

>>21252321
Sports is a terrible comparison. The rules are agreed upon in the first place, so the values of the players have been established, lol much like the contract between employee and employer.
>let's derail the conversation into semantics and try to further derail it into moralistics
You fuck with the meaning of words, now you bitch about semantics. You having made a single case for Marx in this entire thread. You’re only maneuver has been flipping back and forth with the meaning of exploit.
>you can discuss subjugation in abstraction from the moral judgments different people have of it.
No you can’t retard. To subjugate requires a person who has a value to not be subjugated. There is no getting around this. All uses of advantage and subjugation, whether when talking about sports, evolution, or the economy involve presumption of a value.

[Anonymous No.21252367]

>>21235825
I mean Terry Davis said some wacky shit between masturbating on livestream and having lucid moments of remembering a time when he was happy. That has to count for something.

[Anonymous No.21252447]

>>21252353
>so the values of the players have been established
they haven't. you can go play a match without caring about wining. you can even hope you lose to fuck with your teammates or your coach.
>You fuck with the meaning of words
no, you're just mad I'm not using them the way you want, because you can't neutralize my argument this way. you want me to say something retarded and easily refutable, and when I don't, you cry like a child that I'm fucking with words.
>You having made a single case for Marx in this entire thread
I didn't come here to make a case for Marx. I came to respond to some inane things illterate people with sub-average IQ are saying about Marx and then watch them get flustered and try to damage control by derailing the discussion into semantic and morality. that's the only thing this place is good for.
>You’re only maneuver has been flipping back and forth with the meaning of exploit.
I haven't, you're probably just too stupid to understand the fact that you can have many different simple definitions partially approximating and approaching the same concept.
>To subjugate requires a person who has a value to not be subjugated
no, it only requires that you have an advantaged position in your relation to them and that you have the power to keep yourself in that position in face of resistance.

[Anonymous No.21252474]

>>21252447
The advantage is determined by the rules of the game, agreed upon by the players, retard. So the values of the players are a component. The ‘advantage’ in a sport is bound to the rules invented by the players, so remains intersubjective values.
>and then watch them get flustered and try to damage control by derailing
Lol well using two different meanings of the same word is one way to do that.
>it only requires that you have an advantaged position in your relation to them and that you have the power to keep yourself in that position in face of resistance.
Holy shit you are stupid. An ‘advantaged position’ is a valuation. If the players don’t care, there’s no disadvantage. There is no such thing as absolute/intrinsic advantage.
>you cry like a child that I'm fucking with words.
It’s just bizarre knowing fags like you use these leaps of logic to foment ‘revolutions’ around the world, all based on simple word games. Bizarre but not surprising.

[Anonymous No.21252490]

Marxist:
>can’t demonstrate intrinsic advantage
>can’t demonstrate intrinsic subjugation
>can’t demonstrate intrinsic value of literally anything
>Uses the meaning of common words interchangeably when convient
>bitches and moans over semantics
>hurrr durrr I’m not really arguing for Marx anyway
Its good knowing the Marxist doesn’t even believe in his own bullshit

[Anonymous No.21252547]

>>21252474
>>21252490
>So the values of the players are a component.
no, the values are separate from the rules. you can be at a disadvantage as far as the rules are concerned, but be happy with it because you, for example, want to lose the game.
>An ‘advantaged position’ is a valuation.
in a sense it is, but not a moral one, just like assigning a higher value to one chess position over another is not a moral valuation, just one with reference to facts of the matter.
>If the players don’t care, there’s no disadvantage
there is. you can not care about winning a football game, but you're still objectively at a disadvantage with regard to the game when one of your players gets sent off.
>There is no such thing as absolute/intrinsic advantage.
there doesn't need to be. it's enough that there's advantage and disadvantage with regard to a society in which the means of production of the things people need to live is subject to monopoly of selected people, and where their production represents toil.
>It’s just bizarre knowing fags like you use these leaps of logic to foment ‘revolutions’ around the world, all based on simple word games.
I have a bridge to sell you if you think leaps of logic and word games can lead to revolutions around the world. do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

[Anonymous No.21252583]

>>21252547
No the values are not. The rules exist because of the will of the players, ie their values. The whole issue of using sports as a comparison is that economic behavior has no rules in general, only between particular actors. Once again, there is no such thing as intrinsic advantage. That you need games (rule based intersubjective activities) to portray ‘advantage’ shows you’ve lost track of the subject
>there doesn't need to be
Sure does if you’re stating it as inherent to exploitation, which you are.
>uses chess, another shit comparison
Lol chess scores and values are heuristics, not inherent qualities to chess pieces, all there to aid the player or chess engine, and again only have meaning in an activity where the rules are agreed upon, so not economic activity as a whole.

[Anonymous No.21252592]

>>21252547
>it's enough that there's advantage and disadvantage with regard to a society in which the means of production
You literally just admitted intrinsic advantage is not important, yet here you are using advantage in an absolute/intrinsic manner. No, one is not necessarily disadvantage because of the existence of a monopoly. This is a moral valuation that you’ve failed to establish again and again.

[Anonymous No.21252645]

>>21252583
>No the values are not. The rules exist because of the will of the players, ie their values.
the rules had been decided before the players were born.
and the fact that they enter the game voluntarily is true, but it's irrelevant, because this part is disanalogous with human society, which one is born into. so if you want to remain within the analogy, you can't use this fact like you just did.
>The whole issue of using sports as a comparison is that economic behavior has no rules in general
the thing analogous to rules in this case are the facts about the society in question
>Once again, there is no such thing as intrinsic advantage.
intrinsic to what?
> That you need games (rule based intersubjective activities) to portray ‘advantage’ shows you’ve lost track of the subject
no, I think you might be the one who's lost track of the analogy. in the analogy, the rules correspond to external facts of the matter conditioning the entire "system". such facts exist both in games and in human society in general. only in the former they exist in the form of pre-agreed rules and in the latter in the form of natural and historical facts.
>Sure does if you’re stating it as inherent to exploitation, which you are.
where?
>Lol chess scores and values are heuristics, not inherent qualities to chess pieces
the point is they're objectively derivable from the state of the board and the rules. you don't need to involve further valuations.
yes, you need them to establish the rules, but, as explained above in connection to the football analogy, this goes beyond the analogy, since it's disanalogous with human society, and it therefore must be disregarded.
>and again only have meaning in an activity where the rules are agreed upon
yes, the point is they have meaning where there are further objective facts that can be referred to. and similarly, there are further objective facts when we're dealing with a human society.
>>21252592
>You literally just admitted intrinsic advantage is not important, yet here you are using advantage in an absolute/intrinsic manner
intrinsic to what?
>No, one is not necessarily disadvantage because of the existence of a monopoly
humans are if the monopoly is over the things that they need as humans and if it's used to compel them to do things that they avoid as humans
>This is a moral valuation
no, it's a matter of fact about the human species. such facts are independent of any valuation of them. for example, it's a fact that we naturally have 2 legs, whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous No.21252656]

>>21252645
Intrinsic as in absolute advantage, ie objective and independent of the parties involved. Rule based games, like chess, depend on the parties involved for ‘advantage’ to have meaning. So the advantage in chess for example is just a point of view. In the case of economic activity, it is also a point of view, since there is no absolute advantage that applies. Society itself is not bound by inherent rules. It is not a rule based activity.

[Anonymous No.21252664]

>>21252645
>it's a matter of fact about the human species
No lol it is dependent on the point of view of the parties involved, such as the worker and employer. If the worker doesn’t care than there’s no disadvantage or subjugation. You try and fail again and again to escape the moral element to the terms advantage, disadvantage and exploitation.

[Anonymous No.21252674]

>advantage, subjugation and exploitation don’t need to be independent of the view of the people involved
>a person is advantaged/subjugated/exploited whether they think so or not via Marx’s exploitation narrative
You fail to see the contradiction in your thinking

[Anonymous No.21252695]

>>21252656
>Intrinsic as in absolute advantage, ie objective and independent of the parties involved
in that case I never posited "intrinsic advantage". obviously the advantage in question depends on facts about the parties involved, for example the fact that they're living creatures that need to eat, etc.
>Society itself is not bound by inherent rules. It is not a rule based activity.
yes, but it involves objective facts that are in the relevant sense analogous to objective rules, in that they're effective independently of the personal valuation of a single participant.
>No lol it is dependent on the point of view of the parties involved, such as the worker and employer
no, there are facts about the human species and the human society that are true independently of a particular point of view
>If the worker doesn’t care than there’s no disadvantage or subjugation
there is, I've already shown how that can be here >>21252321
>You try and fail again and again to escape the moral element
no, you fail again and again to demonstrate that there is one
>>21252674
I don't see a contradiction because you haven't demonstrated any contradiction

[Anonymous No.21252728]

>>21252695
Yes and eating is not an absolute value. You’re taking a common want, then making that a moral and absolute metric for your ‘advantage’ and ‘exploitation’, is making something that’s a mere correlation into something essential.
>there are facts about the human species and the human society that are true independently of a particular point of view
Okay, post them lol. Pro tip: try avoiding your loaded terms of advantage, subjugate and exploit.
>don't see a contradiction because you haven't demonstrated any contradiction
You claim no absolute advantage is needed, then proceed to dictate that one is advantaged, regardless of their values, ie there is an absolute standard that determines ‘advantage’, which is a contradiction and which you failed to prove.

[Anonymous No.21252735]

>all oppression stems from class
>a class free society is possible, and inevitable (he was wrong about that last part)
>how to do it, you ask?
>make all of society one big class, and oppress all those who dont want to participate in that society
>use violent revolution if necessary
>accuse everyone who refuses to join of being against the people
>create the single greatest division of people in human history, ultimately responsible for more death and oppression than any leftist could gyrate into blaming on capitalism
>die as a member of the upper class you ranted against, gleefully and lovingly participating in the system you wanted destroyed
>get misinterpreted for nearly two centuries straight by equal numbers of self-indulgent and deluded schizos, and naiive college kids, who joyfully engage in the bloodiest, most destructive revolutions history has seen since ancient times, all feeling morally justified because they read you bitch about having to get up for work on monday while some other dude got born into money
He was always just some stupid fuckhead begging "What about me?" It doesn't matter how formally he begged that question, because that's all he ended up concluding. That's why no one takes his shit seriously anymore, especially the other commies. He was abandoned basically immediately outside of academic circles, and only academics cling to him now. And even his adherents there are dying off.

His entire followers at this point consist of Winnie the Pooh and self-entitled American pseudo-leftists who have no clue what he talked about.

[Anonymous No.21252742]

>>21252695
>but it involves objective facts that are in the relevant sense analogous to objective rules,
Holy shit you are stupid. Phenomena (facts) and rules (abstractions invented by humans for many purposes) are not analogous. You think rules of a game and facts of nature can be treated equally. You are an idiot

[Anonymous No.21252815]

>>21252728
>You’re taking a common want, then making that a moral and absolute metric for your ‘advantage’ and ‘exploitation’, is making something that’s a mere correlation into something essential.
it's not "just a correlation" that people need to eat. it is an essential fact of their life that they can't escape, and that will affect their social organization, their activity, etc.
and I'm not making it a moral and absolute metric. it's factual, not moral, and it's not absolute but relative to human society in particular: if this was about chess, for example, I wouldn't treat food as relevant. its relevance isn't absolute.
>>there are facts about the human species and the human society that are true independently of a particular point of view
>Okay, post them lol.
I already have: homo sapiens are bipeds
>then proceed to dictate that one is advantaged, regardless of their values, ie there is an absolute standard that determines ‘advantage’
that doesn't follow, because advantage regardless of value doesn't require an absolute standard. for example, the fact that you're disadvantaged in a football game without a goalkeeper even if you don't value winning is not an absolute standard, but one relative to the rules of football and other objective facts.
if you're going to respond that the rules of football themselves require valuation, I already explained here why that's irrelevant >>21252645

>>21252742
>Phenomena (facts) and rules (abstractions invented by humans for many purposes) are not analogous
as I explained, they are analogous in that they're effective independently of the personal valuation of a single participant.
you aren't equipped to discuss analogies, because you don't seem to grasp the difference between being analogous and being equal
>You think rules of a game and facts of nature can be treated equally.
they can be treated equally with respect to the features they share, yes. that's how analogies work. you have the iq of a monkey

[Anonymous No.21253601]

>>21235842
Anglo box detected. Marx was right about Darwin.

[Anonymous No.21253933]

>>21252815
People eating is not an absolute value. Is it wrong if a person can’t eat? No not necessarily so. Please prove why. There is no principle of nature that says humans should always have food. So no it is not a ‘fact’ that we always need to eat. You haven’t shown that at all. What quantities do we need to eat? Enough to barely survive? Enough to have a great civilization? Does nature care? No not at all. You’re mixing human biology with values.
>homo sapiens are bipeds
So what? This has nothing to do with advantage, subjugation or exploitation. The sun is orange so therefore your Marxist narrative exists? You’re retarded.
>the fact that you're disadvantaged in a football game without a goalkeeper even if you don't value winning is not an absolute standard
Once again, there are arbitrary rules made up to make this ‘advantage’ present. Society in general has no such rules. So it means nothing. Appealing to biological qualities does not generate rules. ‘Humans need food to survive, so having food is a rule of Society’ ignores the fact that individuals do not always value or pursue food. Your reasoning is shit.
>they can be treated equally with respect to the features they share, yes.
They are not the same at all dumbass. One is arbitrary and subject to whims of people (rules), one is not. But keep trying to make yourself feel smart

[Anonymous No.21253955]

>makes up arbitrary societal rules for what constitutes advantage, subjugation and exploitation
Marxist logic getting clearer and clearer. Ironic the Marxist thinks food is an absolute necessity, yet wants to take away the individuals right to buy/sell at quantities he/she thinks is appropriate, since that may confer ‘exploitation’.

[Anonymous No.21253982]

>>21253955
not that anon but you are genuinely being the most semantic insufferable motherfucker i have ever seen, genuinely gayer than aids
> yet wants to take away the individuals right to buy/sell at quantities he/she thinks is appropriate, since that may confer ‘exploitation’.
ones gain is anothers loss and competition on the market and capitals need to ever expand necessitates capitalists to find ways to cut costs and wages, if a capitalist gave their workers the full value of their labour they would literally get no profit

[Anonymous No.21253990]

>>21253982
>Marxist invents bullshit meanings for their shit to make sense
>bitch and moan about semantics
Labor has no intrinsic value, so “giving the full value of their labor” is not possible. The value of labor is a point of view, already discussed earlier. And the anon in question agrees on this but thinks it’s irrelevant. Marxists can’t keep a consistent narrative.

[Anonymous No.21254000]

>>21253990
>Labor has no intrinsic value, so “giving the full value of their labor” is not possible
i just said that, it's impossible to give someone the full value of their labour as that's not how firms work, profit needs to be made for a firm to work

[Anonymous No.21254089]

>>21254000
No, it’s impossible because labor has no inherent worth. So the worker cannot make a demand beyond the terms of their employment. It’s not due to the nature of firms, but due work itself not always having value. The capitalist can’t possibly “give full value of their labor” just as he can’t make an orange Tuesday. The statement itself makes no sense. It is asking the impossible

[Anonymous No.21254107]

>>21254089
the moment a hour of someones labour is given a wage, a price, it is given value, because that is what value means in capitalist society workers do not agree to bad conditions and wages because of some philosophical agreement that labour has no worth, they agree to it because they have no other means of surviving, they own nothing no means of production by which they can produce and reproduce their life so they must rely on selling their labour for income and stop thinking that i'm endorsing people getting the full value of their labour i literally said at the start that that is impossible

[Anonymous No.21254117]

>>21235772

[Anonymous No.21254123]

>>21254107
Value is not the same as price. Price is the exchange value, totally different from the intrinsic value. Labor itself has no value. The “price” for it is negotiated between employer and employee beforehand. We don’t use price as value since that fluctuates and depend on buyer/seller whims.

[Anonymous No.21254126]

>>21254107
It’s impossible but not for the reasons you stated

[Anonymous No.21254138]

>>21254117
marxism looks at the capitalism on the aggregate, a baker taking 10 hours to bake a loaf of bread will still have to sell it at the price of a loaf of bread that took 5 hours to bake as the rest of the bakers on the market took 5 hours to bake their product
>>21254123
the very concept of value in capitalist society is a commodities price and the price of a commodity is determined by the labour put into it, use value has no price i agree but that matters little when the commodity is sold for a price on the market and the labour put into it gets a dollar value. and the price isn't determined by the employee and employer in tandem, it's determined by the market
>>21254126
i mean you can give workers the full value of their labour, your firm will almost immediately fail however

[Anonymous No.21254317]

>>21254138
>the very concept of value in capitalist society is a commodities price and the price of a commodity is determined by the labour put into it
Value in a ‘capitalist society’ is not merely the price of the commodity. That is just one kind of value, an approximation of the value of the commodity to the seller and buyer. The price is not determined by the labor put into it. That is completely false. The price is determined by buyer/seller, which sometimes relates to the price of the labor. Labor is not put into a ‘dollar value’ at the market. The price sold or bought does not reflect the labor. These are two different things. The work and the price of the commodity are two separate exchanges, sometimes related (if the purchaser for example is influenced by the labor, like in art) and sometimes not. Also, I’m not speaking of use value, but intrinsic value, the value inherent in a commodity independent of both use and exchange value. This is the ‘true’ value of the commodity needed to calculate surplus, hence exploitation. The mere price of a commodity is what the commodity can be exchanged for, which suggests nothing of what the worker is owed beyond the terms of the contract.
>mean you can give workers the full value of their labour, your firm will almost immediately fail however
there is no such thing as ‘full value of their labor’ beyond what the laborer can negotiate with his employer.

[Anonymous No.21254346]

>>21254317
>Value in a ‘capitalist society’ is not merely the price of the commodity. That is just one kind of value
in capitalist society value is price, that is how people value items
> That is just one kind of value, an approximation of the value of the commodity to the seller and buyer
price, exchange value is the kind of value that makes a commodity what it is, a commodity is something that is produced for the purpose of selling it so exchange value is the only value it has
> The price is not determined by the labor put into it. That is completely false. The price is determined by buyer/seller
so every price a item has is determined by the people that buy them? does society just consciously decide to gradually increase the price of everything?
> Labor is not put into a ‘dollar value’ at the market. The price sold or bought does not reflect the labor
it does, because the capitalist has to cover the cost of production which includes labour, thus labour acquires a price
> the value inherent in a commodity independent of both use and exchange value
are you retarded? commodities are made and exist purely to be sold, exchange value is literally what defines them

[Anonymous No.21254370]

>>21254346
>capitalist society value is price, that is how people value items
No it is not. People value things for many reasons. Price is an approximation at best.
>does society just consciously decide to gradually increase the price of everything?
Inflation and other societal factors. The Marxist exploitation is not one of them lol
>because the capitalist has to cover the cost of production which includes labour, thus labour acquires a price
The capitalist tries to cover the cost, but can sell at any price he wants. The exchange between worker and employer is separate from buyer and seller. The motivation to pay employees is not always bound to the price of the commodity since the two are separate. The employer often pays the workers first, then hopes sales cover the loss, but the price sold remains independent
>commodities are made and exist purely to be sold, exchange value is literally what defines them
>water exists purely to be exchanged and sold lol
No exchange value doesn’t define a commodity; it reflects the will of the buyer and seller. Two different things. Your grasp of reality, like every Marxist, is complete shit. Value does not exist in commodities, it exists in peoples desires and will, ie subjective, hence why labor has no price beyond the contract.

[Anonymous No.21254384]

>>21254346
You treat the exchange between (1) worker and employer, and (2) buyer and seller as necessarily related when they are not. The worker gets what he thinks he can get from his employer, and the employer as salesman gets what he thinks he can get from the buyer. Two different transactions

[Anonymous No.21254393]

>>21254384
Its like thinking my transaction with vendor A is somehow related to my transaction with vendor B just because the same wallet is involved. They are separate, so the prices are separate.

[Anonymous No.21254750]

>>21253933
>There is no principle of nature that says humans should always have food.
there is a principle of nature that says humans need food to survive, and a principle of nature that says humans strive to survive
>You’re mixing human biology with values.
you are. I'm telling you that, for example, homo sapiens are bipeds, and you're trying to twist it into me saying that it's morally required that they be bipeds, or something.
>So what? This has nothing to do with advantage, subjugation or exploitation
yes it does. humans being bipeds, humans needing to move around the Earth to live, plus some other facts about humans taken together entail that, for example, footwear will constitute wealth in human society, and, consequently, having monopoly over the means of production of footwear will constitute an advantage over others. and a series of such advantages piled up will lead to subjugation and exploitation of the disadvantaged.
>You’re retarded.
you're not the one to call people retarded if you can't grasp the simple points I'm making
>Once again, there are arbitrary rules made up to make this ‘advantage’ present
the rules _exist_ to make this advantage present. and facts about human beings and human society _exist_ as well, to make advantage within human society present
>Appealing to biological qualities does not generate rules.
it generates objective facts about the environment that constitute objective constraints within it, just like rules of a game constitute objective constraints within the game. you call people retarded, but you had this analogy explained to you several times already and it still goes over your head.
>ignores the fact that individuals do not always value or pursue food
on the contrary, the existence of exceptions confirms the existence of a general fact that those are the exceptions from. unless you want to tell me that people just starving to death without attempting to pursue food is not exceptional.
>Your reasoning is shit.
lol. you're basically saying that "homo sapiens are bipeds" is not true because some people get their leg blown off by mines. you don't get to call other people's reasoning shit
>>they can be treated equally with respect to the features they share
>They are not the same at all dumbass. One is arbitrary and subject to whims of people (rules), one is not.
thanks for proving what I said about you being so stupid that you're unable to comprehend how analogies work.
because I'm not saying they're the same in every respect. I'm saying they're the same with respect to the features they share. and what you bring up is not such a feature, so they can differ with respect to it without undermining my analogy.

[Anonymous No.21254788]

>>21253955
>makes up arbitrary societal rules for what constitutes advantage
no, I explained that what constitutes advantage is determined by objective facts about humans and their society. it's not based on arbitrary rules.
>Ironic the Marxist thinks food is an absolute necessity
I think that homo sapiens need food to live. and the fact that you need to resort to denying this to combat Marxism shows in what desperate position you are here
>yet wants to take away the individuals right to buy/sell at quantities he/she thinks is appropriate, since that may confer ‘exploitation’.
not at all. buying and selling will go away because human society will decide that buying/selling in any quantities isn't appropriate for its well-being
>>21254317
>The price sold or bought does not reflect the labor.
it does, just not with perfect accuracy in every act of sale
>Also, I’m not speaking of use value, but intrinsic value, the value inherent in a commodity independent of both use and exchange value.
exchange value is only the form of appearance of value of the commodity, so the two aren't independent of each other
>there is no such thing as ‘full value of their labor’
but there is the "full value of the products of their labour"
>>21254370
>The capitalist tries to cover the cost, but can sell at any price he wants.
but as a general rule the capitalist he must cover the costs, which puts a lower bound on prices, and he must sell at all, which puts an upper bound. this is how reality brings prices to correspond to values.
>The employer often pays the workers first, then hopes sales cover the loss, but the price sold remains independent
but he only pays the workers because he calculates that it will lead to a return that surpasses costs. if it turns out otherwise, he stops paying them. as a result, the total sum of revenues of capitalist firms is above the total costs.
>Value does not exist in commodities, it exists in peoples desires and will
people assign values to commodities, which means that commodities have values as far as people are concerned. this is the same thing.
>>21254393
it's not because the same wallet is involved, but because the transactions are part of the same process of production, where you buy labour-power in order to appropriate its products and sell it for more than it has cost to make them

[Anonymous No.21255282]

>>21249663
>mfw do this because it's comfy
>never been a freemason
Where is my empire?

[Anonymous No.21256327]

>>21236353
Intellectuals love Marx because he is one of them. Both intellectuals and Marx are midwits using lots of words to pretend to be far smarter than they actually are. It is something you can debate endlessly and get they smug sense of superiority, by pretending you are smarter than the "masses."
Henry George is actually smart, this is toxic to intellectuals. Their whole illusion of intelligence is destroyed and their best defense is to forget they read him and pretend he doesn't exist. If you had a class on him it would be "Henry George is right and you are an idiot."
He's like feeding Nietzsche to the fervently religious.

[Anonymous No.21256504]

The spectre of communism is not just haunting Europe, it's haunting the minds of brain/lit/s too. Marx contributed this phenomenon.