I don't get it

[Anonymous No.22386949]

>labor theory of value
So things are supposed to be valued according to some abstract principle of fairness, and not how people actually value things? What the fuck does this even mean?

>"while in communist society... it is possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner"
There was nothing stopping him doing these things.

>alienation of workers
The solution to the meaninglessness of assembly line work is to trust the plan that revolutionary political action by people who believe all this stuff is going to magically produce a utopia where nobody has anything to worry about?

I seriously cannot understand how this stuff has any sway with anyone over the age of 16 or over the IQ of 90.

[Anonymous No.22386975]

>>22386949
Because you are a 16 year old with an IQ of 90.

The half literate workers Marx wrote for are all more intelligent than you. You have not read MARX I know you haven't, considering that one of the things he says in Wage Labour in Capital is that there is no relation of the value put into something in terms of labour hours and its exchange value on the market...

[Anonymous No.22386981]

>>22386949
>There was nothing stopping him doing these things.
so a worker who works in 1862 for 14 hour days 6 days a week has nothing stopping them from doing these things?
>but muh working day is 8 hours now.
and it was a product of the class struggle. and it's more like 9 hours anyway. the cost of transportation from work to home certainly isn't 'free time' and neither is me resting to recover from the pains of labor.

[Anonymous No.22386982]

Of course you can't, you're too retarded to actually read communist theory. The labor theory of value has nothing to do with fairness (or equality) and neither does communism. Start with Principles of Communism by Engels.

[Anonymous No.22386986]

>>22386975
I haven't read Marx because every single thing I have ever heard from him is retarded beyond belief. The only reason I would ever have to read him is to try to follow this retard-rabbit hole to a final conclusion, but truly I don't think I would find it.

>>22386981
How about YOU DON'T NEED TO WORK IF YOU'RE PROVIDING BASIC NECESSITIES FOR YOURSELF YOU STUPID FUCKING RETARD

[Anonymous No.22386988]

>>22386986
>I haven't read Marx
Then read him instead of talking shit. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying Hitler wanted to gas everyone without blonde hair and blue eyes.

[Anonymous No.22386992]

>>22386986
>YOU DON'T NEED TO WORK IF YOU'RE PROVIDING BASIC NECESSITIES FOR YOURSELF
Not possible for the overwhelming majority in capital based society.

[Anonymous No.22386998]

>>22386982
>read this book uhhh it's too complicated to explain here
And let me guess, when I come back with the same questions "I didn't understand it"?

[Anonymous No.22387001]

>>22386998
What do you want explaied for you? You didn't ask any questions.

[Anonymous No.22387006]

>>22386988
So the committed Marxists who assure me they've read all the sacred works are wrong when they tell me that capitalism is unfair because a business owner is able to make a profit?

[Anonymous No.22387012]

>>22387006
>pseuds say a thing
Marx doesn't care that capitalism is UNFAIR. Sure it is unfair, but life is unfair. That's not the point. The point is that wage labourers and capitalists have diametrically opposing interests and thus leads to conflict.

[Anonymous No.22387017]

This post is extremely low quality.

[Anonymous No.22387018]

>>22386992
Marxism literally imagines that the state will eventually cease to exist, radically changing everyone's life forever in the process, and you're telling me that commie retards can't just start subsistence farming in their orgy communes because.... not everyone can?

[Anonymous No.22387020]

>>22387001
Labor theory of value. Without jargon.

>>22387012
>accepts life is unfair
>doesn't accept that finite organisms have to compete to some degree for finite resources
Any ideas for getting rid of the opposing interests between men who compete for mates?

[Anonymous No.22387040]

>>22387018
There's no such thing as 'marxism' and when Marx and Engels talk about the state they mean class rule. So when they say 'communism will end the state' they mean 'classless society will end class rule' which is almost a tautology at this point.

>commie retards can't just start subsistence farming
You can't actually do subsistence farming. There is a reason why know one does it. Most people live paycheck to paycheck, second if you actually want your farm to be profitable you will have to work on your farm into the economy of scale. You would have to buy seeds in bulk and sell your produce at bulk. In my country farmers who own large plots have trouble with competing with foreign growers and pass lobby to pass tariffs in order to protect themselves.

Land owners in England passed the corn laws to protect themselves 200 years ago. 'Just start your own farm bro' is as naive and stupid as saying 'just start your own bank bro'

And god forbid your self sustenance is a threat to the state, you'll just get ruby ridged.
>Labor theory of value.
LTV isn't even Marx. It's Adam Smith, pic related
>>22387020
>doesn't accept that finite organisms have to compete to some degree for finite resources
Except this IS accepted. Lmao. Why do you think Mao united all the peasants and genocided millions of landlords, lol.

[Anonymous No.22387045]

>>22386949
Almost everything that has to do with the extreme left is either gay or neurotic. Communists, leftists, gay and pretentious all of them.

[Anonymous No.22387048]

>>22387045

[Anonymous No.22387054]

>>22387020
>>22386949
>LTV
It literally just means that an item is only as truly valuable as the average work time needed to produce it.
>but that's not how people value goods
Lemme guess, supply and demand does it? Then what determines an items value at an equilibrium. SnD does indeed influence the PRICE, but the price is still primarily derived from value.
>but muh art / wine / oil / gold
Exceptions that varify the general rule, all existing either due to monopolistic nature of the goods in question or the subjective value that can be applied to antiques, but is meaningless to the vast majority of goods like industrial steel, microchips or food.

[Anonymous No.22387068]

>>22387054
>Exceptions that varify the general rule
No because exchange value doesn't have anything to do with use value. Not only that but the production of a painting has labor hours accumulated in the training of the artist, wine in it's storage, oil in it's use value, etc.

Marx NEVER denies supply and demand producing the exvhange valje of an item, he only argues the law of supply and demand is only one of the many economic laws dictating the exchange value of an item, and only using that obfuscates the true nature of price in the capital economy (unpaid labor).

[Anonymous No.22387076]

>>22386949
>*Russian* communism FAILED
>TRUE communism never had the chance to FAIL
Read The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism by Russel Bertrand and you will understand why. I recommend reading Why Men Fight by the same author, too.

[Anonymous No.22387094]

>>22387040
>You can't actually do subsistence farming
Absurd statement. This is the pattern with Marx apologists. Always making imaginary bridges to the desired conclusions where the logic breaks down.

>There is a reason why no one does it
Yeah. They prefer making a salary with their boring 9-5 that allows them to pay for food as well as funkopops etc.

>Land owners in England passed the corn laws
Corn laws in England is insurmountable obstacle, so we need bloody revolution.

>It's Adam Smith
If the "labor theory of value" is saying that to a man, a thing is worth exactly how much he is willing to give up to get it, then it is saying nothing. But it isn't saying this, is it?

>Except this IS accepted
So the domain of economics is magically different from everything else in that everyone could be totally satisfied and cooperative?

[Anonymous No.22387100]

>>22387094
>Absurd statement
How is it absurd.
>They prefer making a salary with their boring 9-5
>Funk-pop buyers are the majority of wage labourers
>Corn laws in England is insurmountable obstacle, so we need bloody revolution
What?
>It's Adam Smith
It says there: The toil and trouble of acquiring it.
>So the domain of economics is magically different from everything else in that everyone could be totally satisfied and cooperative?
?
What are you even talking about. Half of your posts are completely incoherent.

[Anonymous No.22387102]

>>22387054
Okay, so part of the equation of how valuable something is is how hard it is to come by. I don't see how this gets me to "business owners shouldn't be able to make a profit. It should be impossible to grow a business because 100% of the value that an employee adds should go to him. No I don't care that he can't produce that value outside the context of the business that was set up without any effort or risk on his part"

[Anonymous No.22387109]

>>22387100
If you can't understand me, there's no point continuing. Though it isn't surprising that the obvious objections I raise aren't legible to a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.22387110]

>>22387102
>equation of how valuable something is is how hard it is to come by
Only for it's [exchange]-value on the market. The value of a particular commodity is the average socially necessary labour time required to reproduce it.
>business owners shouldn't be able to make a profit
Has nothing to do with anything anyone said.
>It should be impossible to grow a business because 100% of the value that an employee adds should go to him
Has nothing to do with anything anyone said.

[Anonymous No.22387113]

>>22387109
No I am talking about the economy and you arguing about funko pops and men made of straw. I am not a Marxist either, merely stating his position. The fact that (you) assume that right off the bat means you aren't even arguing in good faith.

[Anonymous No.22387119]

I scratch my butthole and sniff my fingers.
Can't fucking help myself with the sniffing.

[Anonymous No.22387122]

>>22387110
>Has nothing to do with anything anyone said.
We're talking about Marx, and Marxist retards are always going on about how business profit is exploitation of the workers it employs, which is obviously tied up with how Marx defines the value of labor.

>>22387113
>I am not a Marxist
You are defending his "ideas". And I always argue in good faith.

[Anonymous No.22387123]

>It should be impossible to grow a business because 100% of the value that an employee adds should go to him
It's funny how anons think Marx thinks this, when Marx thinks a capitalist couldn't do this even if he wanted to... lest the capitalist lose his business...

[Anonymous No.22387126]

>>22387122
>We're talking about Marx, and Marxist retards are always going on about how business profit is exploitation of the workers it employs
And? So what. Has nothing to do with Marx.
>which is obviously tied up with how Marx defines the value of labor.
No it isn't. It's tied up to how Marx views profit, which is as unpaid labor hours.
>You are defending his "ideas
No I'm just telling you what Marx said, whereas you are arguing with 'Marxists' inside your head. Marx doesn't even have ideas. In fact Marx had nothing but contempt for 'ideas' and fantasy..

[Anonymous No.22387146]

>marxists retards marxists retards marxists retards
And you will find, even Marx agrees you there!

[Anonymous No.22387153]

>most americans cannot afford to buy a home
>anons think they can just go on and start a farm and LIVE off it.
I am 100% sure I am talking to a NEET.

[Anonymous No.22387163]

>>22387020
>doesn't accept that finite organisms have to compete to some degree for finite resources
That's exactly what he's doing, what do you think class struggle entails?

[Anonymous No.22387205]

the marxist propaganda is that people are mean, not inherently, but because they dont have the material condition to coom.
Once they are rich and have the easy life that humans want, all people are happy and hug each other.
of course the same humanist propaganda says that people who become rich are inherently mean, bc ''money & absolute power corrupt absolutely'' and rich people become selfish forever. It's impossible to stop being selfish alone, this is why all atheists want bureaucrats to make rich people poorer.

so you have the atheist dilemma: the atheist want to coom, they need money for this and they say money will make people happy. but once people have money they coom alone instead of making other people coom. Atheists also need a whole intellectual apparatus to feel mentally safe about their way of life.

This is because atheists and women have no morality beyond hedonism, but still have the deep desire to see themselves and being told that they are virtuous. However, hedonists know that they are subhumans, and since nobody tell atheists that they are righteous, they are addicted to self-made stories where they self insert and are righteous, ie ''because they say so'' lol.

Don't forget that atheists and women are natural born schizophrenic so they dont have any critical thinking in their lizard brain. IE they actually survive by being sex and drug addicts because they see nothing wrong with building a narrative in their little heads were they pass as righteous.

This is why also in atheism, the society is build on commentaries, by editors, journalists and the plebs, and the topics are female centered, ie about sex and crimes (and most against women).

Dont forget that historically in atheism , there is no truth, and no morality , and atheism was a propaganda pushed by revolutionaries merchants to make a society based on international commerce
atheism = hedonism+metanarrative by humanists about how christian monarchies are evil

this is why all the intellectualism in republics are just about ''how much the bureaucrats should control the economy'', which is just the most barren mentality ever. Bourgeois only care about money and keeping their property rights, in order to coom better.

[Anonymous No.22387215]

>>22386992
If you can afford a small piece of arid land you can easily pull it off.

But basic necessities means food, water and shelter. Noting more.

[Anonymous No.22387223]

>>22387215
How am I going to get money for seeds, Tupperware, washing machine, heating? plumbing?

[Anonymous No.22387227]

>>22387223
Also clothing? Have you worked in a field before? Do you know the damages regular clothing acrews?

[Anonymous No.22387253]

>>22387223
Those are all luxuries, the cost of seeds is negligible enough that you may beg for that money on the streets and afford it yourself. For stuff like trees (that you will need for timber) you can just go to the woods when the time is right.

Heating, plumbing and >>22387227's clothing are all luxuries that you have to work for. All you need to not die is food, water, land and shelter all of which you can easily afford or get for free in a capitalist society. Those are your needs. Everything else is a luxury or is required not by capitalism but by the state so it may sustain itself like a parasite it is.

[Anonymous No.22387259]

>>22387253
>clothing is a luxury
You are full of shit. You are completely full of shit.

[Anonymous No.22387313]

>>22387259
How so? Picrel ran a marathon in nothing more than a loincloth. But i can chase the goalposts.

If you really want your clothing that much then work at macdonalds a day longer and alongside a plot of land in Wyoming get some linum seeds for around five dollars and learn how to construct a simple loom before you cut yourself away from the evil capitalist society.

Come to think of it you could probably find some like minded people and try to make it work somewhere, you probably should go to evil rotten capitalist Amerikkka for that since it's mostly empty.

[Anonymous No.22387317]

>>22387313
Pic, forgot to attach.

[Anonymous No.22387321]

>>22387313
I will freeze my ass off in the winter. I wkll cut myself on the fields. You are retarded. People had clothes for the past 5000 years.

[Anonymous No.22387336]

>>22387321
A) you didn't read the rest of my reply.
B) We had clothing for much longer, at least 30 thousand years.
C) during the winter you will freeze even with clothes. You will need to make a fire, i told you to get some seeds for timber.

P.s since In capitalism every niche is filled here's a website for buying cheap land https://www.dollarlandstore.com/collections

[Anonymous No.22387347]

>>22387336
you are completely full of shit and retarded.

[Anonymous No.22387355]

>>22387253
>>22387313
This.

That communists have the narcissism to think that they are owed anything at all by "society" blows my mind. I sincerely cannot imagine how much of a soulcel you would have to be to not understand that every single technological artefact is a GIFT from humanity. You aren't owed it. Your ancestors made do with stone tools, and you're going to complain about INSUFFICIENT MATERIAL CONDITIONS in an age where not only have all processes for producing basic necessities been optimized to the greatest possible degree for delivering abundance, but we have gone so far beyond that it's hardly comprehensible.

[Anonymous No.22387359]

>>22387347
You've got any arguments aside for that?

[Anonymous No.22387363]

>>22387355
self sustience is living poorer than the slave caste of past civilizations

[Anonymous No.22387364]

>>22387359
you don't have an argument, you are telling me the solution is to live worse than serfs did.

[Anonymous No.22387392]

>>22387355
NEET
E
E
T

[Anonymous No.22387396]

>i think we should improve society somewhat
>yet you wear clothes!

[Anonymous No.22387407]

>>22387396
>i think we should improve society somewhat
>uhh by violent revolution (not like Trump, he's a danger to our democracy) and exerting top down control on everyone's economic behavior

[Anonymous No.22387411]

>>22387355
>be me
>labor for society
>spend money in society
>pay taxes to society
>serve military for society
>inherit past from society
SOCIETY OWES U NOTHINNN

[Anonymous No.22387418]

>>22387407
trump is a danger because he's a fucking shobbos goy kike puppet of kushner
YES we need a violent revolution YES we will kill all kikes, landlords, capitalists and (you)

[Anonymous No.22387421]

>>22387411
>well what about when I give something to someone else chud ever think about that
yes you're owed something then

[Anonymous No.22387426]

>>22387418
>I hate landlords, I should just be given a home to live in. It's only fair.
I would have so much more respect for you people if you were unabashed about your egocentric psychopathy, rather than try to dress it up in psuedo-philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22387427]

>>22387421
and that is precisely what marx says. you give your employer your labour therefore you are owed something. but your employer cannot give you what you are owed, lest he be put in a worse position by other economic forces, though creating a dialectic that needs to be resolved.

[Anonymous No.22387433]

>>22387426
>I would have so much more respect for you people if you were unabashed about your egocentric psychopathy, rather than try to dress it up in psuedo-philosophy.
i agree. there should be less whining and more blood.

[Anonymous No.22387441]

>>22387427
If you invest savings and time and effort and brainpower into starting a risky business venture you deserve to profit if you succeed. Sorry you're a low-agency loser who can't deal to be reminded of others ambitions.

[Anonymous No.22387461]

>>22387441
bill gates isn't the one keeping microsoft alive it's his middlemen.

also he will buy your land and vaxxx you

[Anonymous No.22387474]

>>22387461
Yeah it's called ownership stake. An incredible social technology.

Why do you care so much about how wealthy Bill Gates is? I have a hypothesis that commies are hardcore Mammon worshipers, as much as any "capitalist" they complain about. They think "if only people could have their material needs met...", not noticing that they themselves have their material needs met. HAVE YOU NOT HEARD THAT MAN DOES NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE YOU WHINY FAGGOT???

[Anonymous No.22387481]

>>22387474
>he got the jab

[Anonymous No.22387484]

>>22387364
I'm sorry I thought you asked about needs? You NEED food, water and shelter and even for that you need to work for. What you WANT in addition to that is your personal issue that you have to sort out.

You have absolutely no value, you're not entitled to anything. You deserve absolutely nothing. You should cherish everything you have and worship the men that made those things possible, no matter if they were billionaires, academics or simple tradesmen.

All Communists are similar. They are academics with barely any useful ability or people whose ability became irrelevant in the process of creative destruction and a lot of what they perceive as 'needs' so they know that they would profit the most out of a system where from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.

[Anonymous No.22387486]

>>22387481
I didn't, and 97% of the people in my state did.

[Anonymous No.22387496]

>>22386949
>So things are supposed to be valued according to some abstract principle of fairness, and not how people actually value things?
No. Marx specifically states that only socially beneficial labor contributes to value, so it is intrinsically tied to how people value things. Marx very specifically agrees with Smith in that supply and demand are essential in what we know call price discovery. He also points out that capitalist mode of production violates supply and demand concerning labor by interfering in it's price discover: capitalists treats labor like a commodity when it's convenient (in it's generic nature that allows workers to be replaced), and doesn't treat it like a commodity when it's inconvenient (when determining the price of labor in wages). Marx exposes that Capitalism is not a final formula of recognizing fundamental qualities of economic processes and using them as they are - it's a social mechanism of one social class using those fundamental qualities when they are beneficial for said class, and rejecting them and interfering with them when they get n the way - just like in every other form of class society that preceded Capitalism. RTFM.

>There was nothing stopping him doing these things.
There's nothing stopping you from not having strong opinions on books that you haven't read yet here we are.

>The solution to the meaninglessness of assembly line work is to trust the plan that revolutionary political action by people who believe all this stuff is going to magically produce a utopia where nobody has anything to worry about?
No, it is not magically produced - it's produced by the social demand and human labor to achieve it. RTFM.

>>22386975
fpbp and /thread

[Anonymous No.22387497]

>>22387486
you will get the jab.

[Anonymous No.22387498]

>>22387484
Lmao worshipping technocrats. You are such a faggot.

[Anonymous No.22387504]

>>22387484
>You should cherish everything you have and worship the men that made those things possible, no matter if they were billionaires, academics or simple tradesmen.
Please stop projecting your worship of shoewear on everyone, bootlicker.

[Anonymous No.22387510]

>>22387355
I'm owed everything because I didn't choose to live. I have no responsibilities, only demands. This is the only position that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.22387516]

>>22387427
It's his payment for employing you and your colleagues and directing your labour towards something useful to society, for solving a problem. There's nothing to resolve here.

Marx was alive exactly in the middle of the Industrial Revolution therefore he never witnessed its beginning or end. Therefore to him it was the natural order of things that will continue indefinitely so he never realized that the Industrial Revolution made the lives of everyone involved better.

His entire life he was stuck at point one of Adamses list from picrel.

[Anonymous No.22387518]

>>22387498
>>22387504
one of the things thought in bourgeoisie public education if the difference between human needs and wants, and it is two charts with wants and needs split apart.

food water and shelter is the minimum bourgsosie society would like to provide for the massess of workers. anything more than that is a threat. bourgeoisie society even abolised the family.

[Anonymous No.22387535]

>>22387516
>It's his payment for employing you and your colleagues and directing your labour towards something useful to society, for solving a problem. There's nothing to resolve here.
Not useful to society. Useful to his corporation. Say in a country you have 10,000 labourers working in a mine, the owners of which are an overseas company. The miners work in the mine, but the commodity which the workers have mined go to the owner, the corporation. The owner sells the commodity for a price and gives a workers a part of profit for their sustinence.

How does a corporation getting the items the workers produced, and selling them in the world market benefit the society in which the workers are a part of?

[Anonymous No.22387539]

>>22387498
>>22387504
Modern shoes are so nice though. My karrimors can be good for whatever i need them for, I went both on hikes and to an opera in them. All men need something to worship and I'll rather worship that which made my life great rather than some dead german faggot or sky daddy that hates me for not standing up and siting in for an hour each Sunday.

[Anonymous No.22387545]

>>22387539
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism

[Anonymous No.22387562]

>Work those Nike factories goy!
>Yeah you will never be able to afford one of them, and have really no need for them... but work! Work so Americattle can buy my shoes!
https://youtu.be/M5uYCWVfuPQ

[Anonymous No.22387582]

>>22387535
Since you're implying a globalized society like we have today then the coal gets shipped out to Bangladesh where it powers a turbine which generates electricity which powers a sweat shop which makes the shirts that the miners wear. Do the miners know where to look for coal? Do the miners know how to sell the coal overseas? Do the miners know how to run a power plant? Do the miners know how to make a turbine? Do the miners know how to run a Bangladeshi sweat shop? Do the miners know how to ship those clothes back to their country of 10, 000?

They do not probably, we take it for granted these days but the supply chains for everything these days are so long, inter-tangled that nobody knows how to make a pencil anymore.

[Anonymous No.22387605]

>>22387582
The miners don't want their factories shipped out to bangladesh, they want their clothes made in their where the factory will employ their own people.

Fuck globalization fuck you, off with your head american scum.

[Anonymous No.22387609]

>>22387545
>As a form of reification, commodity fetishism presents economic value as inherent to the commodities, and not as arising from the workforce, from the human relations that produced the commodity, the goods and the services.

I'm beginning to think that you guys aren't actually reading anything I'm writing. I said "Worship the people that made my life great" which was a reference to >>22387484. I don't fetishise the shoes themselves, I will throw them away when the seams give out the spirit without the slightest hesitation. I worship and defend the system and the people that made the existence of those shoes possible. And I despise the people that wish to destroy said system, despite them sometimes being the same people.

P.s before you call me a doublethinker, those people often became enemies of the system after they've become rich, since their primary objective is to become entrenched aristocrats and go back to a static society now that they're on top.

[Anonymous No.22387614]

>>22387609
I don't care about your stupid chink shit shoes I will cut off your head and kill you.

[Anonymous No.22387638]

Why do marxists all look like this?

[Anonymous No.22387640]

>>22387638
Those are anarchists

[Anonymous No.22387641]

>democracy is the pillar of western civilization
>a form of power structure made to give everyone a voice
>a literal structure of power, a way of exerting absolute and strict power over the people by giving them the liberation they need, is considered freedom
>the illusion of personal choice through a power structure is the most freeing thing we can think of and have based entire civilizations off of it
Wouldn't freedom actually not be any type of rigid power structure, regardless of its intent? Aren't these two things rather contradictory of eachother?

[Anonymous No.22387644]

>>22387638
bored petty bourgeoise neets

[Anonymous No.22387645]

>>22387605
They probably won't really care that much, they'll be happy to have a shirt. There's some merit to the Marxist class divides (although his definition of the objective of each class is incorrect) but national divides are just false half the time outside of natural boundaries that require resources to cross (read: water).

[Anonymous No.22387657]

>>22387645
>They probably won't really care that much, they'll be happy to have a shirt.
you don't speak for us nigger.
>national divides are also wrong
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are so getting gassed globalist pig
oh and marx never spoke ill of nationalism, he was a bit of a german chauvinist himself.

[Anonymous No.22387658]

>>22387614
It's not going to work in that order.

[Anonymous No.22387697]

>>22387510
You choose to live every waking moment you didn't kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.22387717]

>>22387657
GLHF

[Anonymous No.22387787]

>>22387697
government is responsible for providing a 100% painless form of death, since they supported my mum for giving birth to me. given this violation against me, i have no responsibility towards them while alive. They put me in the predicament that I have to choose suicide in the first place, so it's insane to think whatever I do eithin this predicament would burden me with responsibilities. They helped me exist, so their responsibility is to give me a perfect life.

[Anonymous No.22387792]

>>22387787
A direct implication of this is that anything short of a perfect life is a direct violation against me by the government: if the government does not give me a perfect life, it is indistinguishable from tyranny unless their objective is to stop people from being born.

[Anonymous No.22387828]

Communism is full of flaws in its implementation, at least on a wide scale.
I have second thoughts about the source material though, a lot of the people picking it apart seem to misinterpret the vagueness of language.
The labor theory of value accounts for how many man hours and how much tool usage went into creating a steel ingot from iron ore. The ingot is more valuable than the ore because of all the invisible resources put into it.

>"while in communist society... it is possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner"
Marx actually has a point, communism only really works in small hippie communes. That's the life described as is. Porting it to an industrial or nation-wide scale is just a means for a power-grab. In theory you could have a nation full of hippie communes with a few specializing in this or that production. Yet they would be absolutely poor and weak, and likely absorbed a real power in minutes. Technically, hunter-gatherer tribes in the Sahel could be said to embody communism, but it's more of a default tribal structure than a conscious chosen alternative to capitalism.

[Anonymous No.22387834]

>>22387787
Why do suicidal people care about the pain so much? I've suffered great pains to achieve what I want, yet you guys can't fathom a split second of pain to get what you want.

Suicikidies truly are the biggest pussies in the world.

[Anonymous No.22387846]

>>22387834
>being proud of the pain you experienced
How's slavery?

[Anonymous No.22387847]

>>22387006
>implying marxists every agree on anything
Retard
>>22387122
Double retard because you associate something your imaginary marxists said with Marx.
>>22387427
>petty bourgeois moralisms
>>22387638
Besides the few weirdos with colored hair and tattoos, they look quite normal.
>>22386949
>don't read shit
>just regurgitate retards on social media
This is (You)r brain on terminal internet illness.

[Anonymous No.22387872]

>>22387846
I'm not proud of it, most of it could've been avoided. It's a price that I paid.

I will need to check my copy of "Demons" by Dostoyevsky to check if Kirilov has escaped from the pages.

[Anonymous No.22387934]

>>22387847
>few
>they look normal

[Anonymous No.22387962]

>>22387828
Thank you. One of the best explanations against communism.

[Anonymous No.22387980]

>The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour's social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value. We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.9 Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.10Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other.
"As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time."

what is your question?

[Anonymous No.22388010]

>>22387962
Yeah, sure. The number of viable governing strategies shrinks as the population governed increases, until the only option left at the higher end is various flavors of empire. Soviet Union, post-cold-war-US, Rome, China. Those.
Communism, shocker, is good for communes. So pink-hair is right, it has been done before. Pink hair has no idea about the concept of scale, to her the entire world is her little poetry club. Hippie commune and literally Stalin are therefore the same thing to her, anything else is unfathomable.

[Anonymous No.22388145]

>>22387828
>Yet they would be absolutely poor and weak, and likely absorbed a real power in minutes.
Did Not Read Even the Manifesto/10

[Anonymous No.22388158]

>>22388010
>the number of viable governing strategies shrinks as the population governed increases, until the only option left at the higher end is various flavors of empire.
That's a baseless assumption. What grounds do you actually have for postulating that imperialism is an absolute and immutable constant of reality akin to the velocity of light? Just because humanity didn't have anything aside from empires for the last few thousand years? We didn't have anything other than tribes for many hundreds of thousands of years prior, so...

[Anonymous No.22388188]

>>22388158
>So.....
So you are a nigger who didn't even bother to read Plato and Malthus. Not him but your stupidity made me go out of my cave.

[Anonymous No.22388190]

>>22388158
>That's a baseless assumption. What grounds do you actually have for pos
Fuck yourself Kant.
Large governments always follow a pattern towards consolidation of leadership in a central figure, usually picked by some ruling house.
>the workers!
>Stalin
>the senate!
>Augustus
>our democracy!
>house Clinton

>ything other than tribes for
Tribes never ruled beyond what they could see on the horizon, fool.
>anything aside from empires for the last few thousand years?
You're ignoring everything I'm saying, likely willfully.
Plenty of client states and smaller "democracies" exist in self-contained forms. Larger populations always tend towards centralized rule, most successfully with one person delegating particulars to underlings. Any other system by whatever name devolves into this or collapses beforehand.

[Anonymous No.22388212]

>>22387657
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are so getting gassed globalist pig
Globalism is a symptom of Capitalism. Your (((masters))) imported Jamals and import Juans to satisfy their own economic needs. Shitskins flee from their hovel homes to latch onto more economically developed societies to satisfy their own economic needs. Wars start and send hundreds of thousands of soldiers and tens of millions of rapefugees for economic needs of states and elites. Products being assembled by Ching-Chong and sold to you with blacked.com advertisement is the fundamental economic process of this era, serving to enrich people with no breed, no home, no mother and no nation - because they live in private jets coursing between economic forums and pedophile island airfields. What could ever remain of this globalism when we take the economy out of it?

Marx had no beef with nationalism because nationhood is a concept that is not inherently based in economy and class. And in a society that leaves economic struggle towards greater capital for greater capital's sake, what people will have left to call their own? Aside from their skills and capabilities - what's left is their origin: their family, their language, their homeland and their ancestors. Communist freedom of individuality does not mean the end of nationhood, and commonality is a natural element of individuality that can only be removed with great violence and trauma. In a Communist society, people will be free to actually be nationalistic for the first time, as Capilist society does not practice nationalism and nationhood as a value - it only ever practices it's use in transactions, selling one's home, land and compatriots to this or that corporation, oligarch or economic alliance, for this or that price.

[Anonymous No.22388230]

>>22387934
post face faggot

[Anonymous No.22388254]

>>22388190
>Tribes never ruled beyond what they could see on the horizon, fool.
Ah but that's exactly the point, fool. Tribes were different, so what grounds do we have to state that nothing can ever be different? We know that accumulation of capital is not the beginning of history - so what would make it history's end beyond your incapability to imagine anything other than it even when things other than it already exist right before your eyes?

>Larger populations always tend towards centralized rule
>Large governments always follow a pattern towards consolidation of leadership in a central figure
Large populations always tend towards centralized rule UNDER THIS SPECIFIC MODE OF EXISTENCE that existed for a several thousand years. And even then - it's unquestionably not a uniform and direct process, or we would all live in one great Rome since times immemorial. Instead Romes fall. Why would they do that if all history was nothing more than continuous consolidation of capital?

>Any other system by whatever name devolves into this or collapses beforehand.
Every system collapses eventually. You have o point beyond stating that THIS particular system cannot, and does not collapse, that it is forever, regardless of anything, from technology to faith to resources. Which is sorta retarded.

[Anonymous No.22388269]

>>22388188
>Plato and Malthu
Retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh).

[Anonymous No.22388280]

>>22388254
You want empirical proof for something easily demonstrated repeatedly in history?
You think little states like Iran or Uruguay are on the same scale as the Soviet Union?
You have no sense of scale, you're a pink-hair, you're insane.

[Anonymous No.22388315]

>>22388280
>You want empirical proof for something easily demonstrated repeatedly in history?
But anon, you are the one lacking the sense of scale. I don't claim that consolidation of capital doesn't happen - I claim that it's just one stages in history among many. Marx did not state that Capitalism akshually never happened, or that it's some sort of historical anomaly or a mistake - on the opposite - he explained how it was a logical, inevitable and wholly humanly desirable step in development of human civilization - development which by it's own nature requires further steps beyond this particular one. You are the one claiming that it's the only one, that there are no other steps to make. Which is understandable if you don't know about and don't think about anything beside muh Iran and muh Soviet Union - but that's the scale of decades, centuries at most, and you have to be sorta braindead to believe that what you see around you right now in your globohomo newscasts is the entirety of human history.

And that's beyond even addressing the issues of this small scale - if the human history is a process of capital accumulation, then how come consolidated capital consistently fails? Why did Rome fall? Why Did the British Empire fall? The Qing China? L'Ancien Regime? The Soviet Union?

[Anonymous No.22388409]

>>22388315
I don't give the slightest fuck about anything you're saying and the reasons for that are totally beyond you.

[Anonymous No.22388428]

>look at this trend among functional governments across time
>then why did they collapse?
what
>communism
yup, pink-hair

[Anonymous No.22388429]

>>22388409
>I don't give the slightest fuck about anything you're saying
Well, duh. What other refuge you have after getting BTFO in a thread about Marx discussing Marx which you opened out of your own free will? That's understandable.

>the reasons for that are totally beyond you
Gotta admit here - the mental illness that drove you to open the thread about an author you never read, sperg out in Hobbsish and then declare that you don't really care about any f that and were in fact merely pretending to be retarded is, indeed, totally beyond me. I can only guess on it's origin and mysterious ways.

[Anonymous No.22388433]

>>22388315
Damn, this really just shows how impossible it is to argue against someone's self-interest. Literally breaks it down piece by piece to spoon feed it to
>>22388409
And he couldn't give a single shit. Why? His particular economic interests and livelihood is at the behest of Western Capital accumulation and nothing you ever say could possibly convince the peon otherwise.

[Anonymous No.22388445]

>>22386992
Buddy, you could drop out any time you like.

[Anonymous No.22388456]

>>22388315
>he explained how it was a logical, inevitable and wholly humanly desirable step in development of human civilization
He never did that you absolute retard. Marxs' and Engels' thesis was that capitalism emerged out of wars between italian kingdoms in the 12/13th centuries.

[Anonymous No.22388470]

>>22388428
>what
that
Functional governments collapsing is also an extremely consistent trend across time for them.

If we consider only the trend of consolidation, then it does seem like reality fits the model of continuous capital accumulation. But reality does, in fact, disagree - functional governments and states tend to collapse just as eagerly as they tend to form and grow, the trend you point to is matched by an opposite trend. Reality does not fit the model of continuous capital centralization - instead history appears to unfold as a push-and-pull process of centralization and decentralization. What is the nature of the model we use to explain it? What is it that causes capital to concentrate AND split? What are the driving forces of these opposing processes?

[Anonymous No.22388492]

>>22388158
>That's a baseless assumption.
History implies otherwise. The fact is that greater complexity requires greater control, because complexity is fragile. So to guard against catastrophe complex systems must be controlled more thoroughly.

[Anonymous No.22388527]

>>22388492
>The fact is that greater complexity requires greater control, because complexity is fragile.
That already disagrees with the thesis of history being a continuous process of capital concentration - as it argues establishment of complex relationships rather than simple accumulation. What is the nature and shape of that complexity? And even then - what is it that complexity is fragile against? Be careful before you reinvent class conflict.

>So to guard against catastrophe complex systems must be controlled more thoroughly.
You don't get more thorough than society owning it's population like property. It seems like greater complexity requires not more thorough, but more complex and intricate control. Which once again loops us back to the class issue.

[Anonymous No.22388576]

>>22388470
nigger!

[Anonymous No.22388635]

>>22388445
>he buys the amish larp

[Anonymous No.22388697]

>>22388527
>That already disagrees with the thesis of history being a continuous process of capital concentration - as it argues establishment of complex relationships rather than simple accumulation.
Okay. History isn't a continuous process of anything other than human's attempts at survival and reproduction. Said humans are often found in groups. These groups, their mores, their structure etc display disparate fitness levels analogous to those of biotic organisms. Thus some features and structures of human society are more apt to replicate themselves through time than others. This is of course context sensitive as what is fit here may not be so in some other material environment. This is what history is.
>What is the nature and shape of that complexity? And even then - what is it that complexity is fragile against? Be careful before you reinvent class conflict.
Intensification of production implies greater complexity. This complexity requires management. A lot of farmers growing wheat separately on a flood plain in Mesopotamia require little management. If we want to intensify production with state coordination, central distribution, systems of dykes and levees etc we now need to manage these systems in some way so they do not fall prey to entropy, bad actors, nonparticipation etc. Thus we find at the start of history the intensification of grain production arising concurrently with state bureaucracies (and writing, arithmetic etc).
If at some time if the marginal returns on such attempts at gains in complexity begin to faulter (it stops being worth the hassle) a society is ripe for "collapse" (rapid decomplexification) [RETVRN to latifundia] or being overrun by a system with a better ROI on its complexity [barbarian invasion].

>You don't get more thorough than society owning it's population like property. It seems like greater complexity requires not more thorough, but more complex and intricate control. Which once again loops us back to the class issue.
Intensive and extensive growth in control functions both equate to 'more control.' What is 'more thorough' other than 'more complex and intricate.' You are playing weird word games here which make me reluctant to take what you are saying seriously.
I think we could certainly have greater and greater levels of control than what we have today. Indeed the level of state control of 'the economy' has grown significantly since the advent of your dear 'capitalism.' To the extent that I think there is grounds to call the system we live under today something fundamentally different from what existed before the 'Progressive era.' Technology could possible open up more robust and fine-grained avenues of social control. What does it matter that you own some one on paper? What is this to the possibility of controlling what they think?

[Anonymous No.22389012]

>>22388697
>Okay. History isn't a continuous process of anything other than human's attempts at survival and reproduction.
Well this is an oversimplification. Why not "History isn't a continuous process of anything other than continuous process of anything other than human breathing"?

>These groups, their mores, their structure etc display disparate fitness levels analogous to those of biotic organisms. Thus some features and structures of human society are more apt to replicate themselves through time than others.
That's a very poor analogy for your argument, as any organism's fitness is never not defined by the environment. There are no "superior biological structures" - only "biological structures more fit to a given environment". And the key element of that fitness is adaptability: the species most capable of survival are the ones that are least capable of remaining themselves and most capable of becoming something else.

>Intensification of production implies greater complexity
Why though? What about extensive growth and qualitative factors?
>This complexity requires management
Why though? Aren't ummanaged systems effective more complex, due to their lack of systematization and symmetry?
That's two consecutive steps of your logic built on questional implications.

>A lot of farmers growing wheat separately on a flood plain in Mesopotamia require little management.
As far as we know, they required literally MORE management than modern farmers. Modern farmers don't receive literal orders on what to plant and when.

>we now need to manage these systems in some way so they do not fall prey to entropy, bad actors, nonparticipation etc
That's a nice rug to swap all of a system's issues under. "It's all just entropy/bad actors" is an extremely convenient excuse. Aren't all of those, you know, people and their actions? What motivates them? Personal gain? Then how come personal gain ends up at odds with society's integrity? Not a rhetorical question - it is important how we go from "the benefit of everyone is everyone's benefit" to "my problems are that guy's success and my success is that guy's problem"
(1/2)

[Anonymous No.22389055]

>>22388697
>If at some time if the marginal returns on such attempts at gains in complexity begin to faulter (it stops being worth the hassle) a society is ripe for "collapse" (rapid decomplexification) [RETVRN to latifundia] or being overrun by a system with a better ROI on its complexity [barbarian invasion].
That's a lot of shit to, once again, leave outside the brackets. What is this "faltering" you speak of, and how come less centralized, less complex society has a greater return on investment"?

>Intensive and extensive growth in control functions both equate to 'more control.'
>What is 'more thorough' other than 'more complex and intricate.'
Now THAT is a word game. A state having authority to gain access to belongings of an individual, to enter his home, to imprison him or to kill him without any obstacles is "thorough". Development of law shows that the emerging complexity sacrifices "thorough".

>I think we could certainly have greater and greater levels of control than what we have today.
Of course we could. We could also have lesser control. That depends on whose control over what we mean here, and what purpose does this serve. Do you think the general populace has a lot of control over, say, national economy? Could it have more control?

>Indeed the level of state control of 'the economy' has grown significantly since the advent of your dear 'capitalism.'
Naturally - as the capitalist class requires more direct control of economy as mode of production deviates further from the authority of Capitalists' function. Marx predicted this.

>To the extent that I think there is grounds to call the system we live under today something fundamentally different from what existed before the 'Progressive era.'
Of course - see "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" by Lenin. As the ruling class is driven to retain control over emerging production processes that get further and further away from it's existing power base, it requires more intervention and therefore - a closer fusion between the ruling class and the stat,e until the two become one indistinguishable entity. The question is - what then? The mode of production shall not just stop because of it.

>Technology could possible open up more robust and fine-grained avenues of social control.
Consider that technology is also the source of issues that REQUIRE control, rather than just a forge of heavier shackles.

>What does it matter that you own some one on paper? What is this to the possibility of controlling what they think?
Who is the controlled and who is controller though?

[Anonymous No.22389424]

>>22389012
>oversimplification.
Sure, any attempt to sum up history is bound to be. Suffice to say that historical evolution is Darwinian.
>any organism's fitness is defined by the environment.
Didn't say otherwise
>There are no "superior biological structures" - only "biological structures more fit to a given environment".
No shit.
>And the key element ... becoming something else.
Bizarre non sequitur.
>extensive growth
That is how Rome grew. Still this entailed a growth in state bureaucracy to extract taxes, maintain order in the empire etc.
>Why though? Aren't ummanaged systems effective more complex, due to their lack of systematization and symmetry?
Please show me an 'unmanaged' society of any complexity. There is a reason that states arose with organized agricultural production.
>hey required literally MORE management than modern farmers. Modern farmers don't receive literal orders on what to plant and when.
I was speaking of farmers prior to states. If you do not see how agriculture is today through state intervention heavily managed and controlled I don't know what to tell you. We live in the era of state technocracy and rather than a cudgel they simply use subsidy and regulation. We have massive state organizations, universities, private business all involved in the management of agricultural production. Maybe read Ellul.
>It's all just entropy/bad actors" ...
Excuse? I literally have no idea what you are talking about now and must suspect you are either a troll or an idiot. I see no reason to suppose that what best benefits a person and what is best for the state he lives under should be in any way the same thing. Participation in any system has costs and benefits. Cheating systems does too. Enforcement is one function of the state. Facilitating is another. People have to count the bushels and keep track of who gave what and who gets what etc etc. There arises a vast army of specialists, state scribes whatever you like who must be pressed into service as a state grows in complexity. These roles arise out of a need to manage large scale organizations and production.
>What is this "faltering" you speak of, and how come less centralized, less complex society has a greater return on investment"?
A decline in the return on an investment in complexity, to use Tainter's phrasing. All those state bureaucrats, in doing their job, are necessarily not producing food or goods. If in doing their job of organizing production they increase the output of the system, that is great, if they do not then that is something else. Society is supporting them and they are not increasing its yield. The return on complexity has thus declined. Less complex societies have less such overhead but in turn less managerial capability. Maybe they don't need it. In some contexts complexity is more robust, but sometimes not,

[Anonymous No.22389457]

>>22386949
The labour theory of value is not about market price. It influences market price, but they are different things. It also isn't about "fairness".

In fact the common right wing misconception of what is meant by value here kind of hints at why its a useful concept. Of course things can increase in market price because of a totally ephemeral consumer trend or acts of god. That in itself shows that if you want to think seriously about how humans generate wealth, generate useful goods and work in an economically constructive manner, you can't just make it all about market price. You need other concepts.

>There was nothing stopping him doing these things.

C'mon this is obviously dishonest. Life in capitalist societies is constant and pervasive coercion-the lives of the vast majority people will always be defined by what they are forced to do with the majority of their energy and time by far.

>The solution to the meaninglessness of assembly line work is to trust the plan that revolutionary political action by people who believe all this stuff is going to magically produce a utopia where nobody has anything to worry about?

This is just entirely wrong and dishonest. Like that's just not the idea. Like it would take so long to pick apart everything that's wrong about this sentence but just to skim over a few alienation is not limited to particular manual work, but more importantly the Marxist solution to alienation is not creating a society where no one has to work. Furthermore Marxism is actually one of the few major philosophies which constructs itself entirely around NOT counting on anyone's good will or trusting to anyone's benevolence. This is why material interest is so central.

You're intellectually dishonest. You're from first principles emotionally mad about leftism, but vaguely know you will never understand Marxism well enough to make any correct arguement against it, so you just have to play pretend, to yourself as much as anyone else, that a super basic strawman ideology you made up is what Marxism is. Cause that's all you can engage with. You know I reckon Nietschze was largely wrong but I don't go on the internet arguing he was because I know I don't actually have the requisite understanding to challenge his arguements or those of his sucessors as they actually exist.

[Anonymous No.22389466]

>>22389424
>Suffice to say that historical evolution is Darwinian.
>Bizarre non sequitur.
Wow, someone got actually filtered by a 4chan post.

[Anonymous No.22389701]

>another commietranny thread

[Anonymous No.22390663]

>>22387496
>and doesn't treat it like a commodity when it's inconvenient (when determining the price of labor in wages)

Okay wait a minute, this is just wrong. We know for a fact that labor scarcity does absolutely positively impact wages.

[Anonymous No.22390746]

>>22386949
oh boy is it time for /lit/ chuds to pretend they've read marx again?

[Anonymous No.22390753]

>>22387484
>You have absolutely no value, you're not entitled to anything.
1000% guarantee you're the type to have a tantrum when the drive-thru cashier gives you a medium soda instead of a large

>You should worship the men that made those things possible
frankly embarrassing. but hey maybe if you make a good enough post, elon and zuck will come to your house and pat you on the head

[Anonymous No.22390757]

>>22389701
>ctrl-f "trans, tranny"
>0 matches in thread
>obsessed

[Anonymous No.22390758]

>reading marx

[Anonymous No.22390761]

>>22390757
you don't pass btw

[Anonymous No.22390776]

>>22386986
>I haven't read Marx because every single thing I have ever heard from him
How can you "heard from him" without reading him? Kill yourself, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.22390787]

>>22390761
>>22390758
nobody was talking about trans shit until you brought it up kek is there something you don't want to admit to yourself maybe? do you ever feel uncomfortable in your body? do you sometimes wonder if it'd be easier to be a girl? it's okay anon gender isn't real you can just be a girl

[Anonymous No.22390791]

>>22390787
>newfag can't recognize a discord tranny thread
Lurk more, tourist

[Anonymous No.22390796]

>>22390787
>marxist pseud resorts to cringeworthy psychoanalysis and psychological projection
Dude you dont pass

[Anonymous No.22390801]

In the off chance this is not a troll post you should read chapter 1 and 2 of volume 1 of Das Kapital as it addresses your questions

[Anonymous No.22390803]

>>22390787
Nice try, tranny, but I am only a girl on Tuesdays. This is not a Tuesday

[Anonymous No.22390816]

>>22390796
>>22390791
nobody was talking about transgenders before you showed up, not a single mention in the entire thread, obsessed LMAO

[Anonymous No.22390837]

>>22390816
Are you mentally retarded? this is a discord tranny thread, marxist trannies congregate in freakshow discords to shill their idiot cuck opinions because /lit/ is totally dominated by rightwingers and they have to astroturf interest in garbage like marxism. Did you just not know that most marxists on 4chan are trannies? were you born yesterday?

[Anonymous No.22390847]

>>22390837
>have people actually read and understood marx?
>no there must be a transpiracy
meds

[Anonymous No.22390882]

>>22386986
>YOU DON'T NEED TO WORK IF YOU'RE PROVIDING BASIC NECESSITIES FOR YOURSELF YOU STUPID FUCKING RETARD
Says someone who hasn't had to provide the basic necessities for himself. It might not be traditional work, but it's still fucking work.

[Anonymous No.22390891]

>>22390746
Just like they pretend to read every other book they discuss.

[Anonymous No.22390900]

>>22390891
it's all so tiring

[Anonymous No.22390912]

>>22390847
No, I'm referring to these obviously astroturfed threads specifically. Not all marxist threads are obvious discord tranny ops.

Take your hormones and meds, you don't pass.

>>22390900
>shriveled_despair_man
post more newfag cringe, marxcuck

[Anonymous No.22391014]

>>22390787
You actually can't be a girl. No womb, no eggs, no turning back, etc.

[Anonymous No.22391029]

>/pol/tards shit up the thread with their degenerate fetish
Every time

[Anonymous No.22391085]

>>22391029
>implying a marxtard thread isn't full of trannies
>everyone who makes fun of trannies is from pol
Cope lol

[Anonymous No.22391261]

>>22390663
>Okay wait a minute, this is just wrong. We know for a fact that labor scarcity does absolutely positively impact wages.
Not absolutely - occasionally.

[Anonymous No.22391276]

>>22387496
>and doesn't treat it like a commodity when it's inconvenient (when determining the price of labor in wages)
How is that true? There's a contractual agreement between the worker and capitalist, the worker can and has refused to work / decideded to do another job / worked for someone else who offered him/her a better pay whenever the capitalist's pay wasn't considered fair

[Anonymous No.22391283]

>>22386949
Do we really need another thread to talk about why marxists/communists are retarded mongrel niggers? Pretty sure everyone has figured this out already.

[Anonymous No.22391299]

>>22388212
This is actually wrong though. Communism is internationalist by definition

[Anonymous No.22391374]

>>22391299
>Communism is internationalist by definition
No. The proletariat (and therefore, Communist ideology and political practice of revolution) is international, and not by definition but by it's opposition to globalist capital: if the capital was not global, there would be no need for proletariat to unite globally in reaction. There's nothing about Communist formation itself that makes it inherently international - it can be isolationist just as well.

[Anonymous No.22391426]

>>22391276
>How is that true? There's a contractual agreement between the worker and capitalist, the worker can and has refused to work / decideded to do another job / worked for someone else who offered him/her a better pay whenever the capitalist's pay wasn't considered fair
How many times do we have to go over this?

>"What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour."
>"Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."

The fact that wages follow declines of profits but generally don't follow increases in profits has been pointed out way before Marx. A worker and a capitalist are not in equal contractual agreement, since the capitalist inherently has more bargaining power - as the worker has only his labor, while the capitalist has his own labor plus the capital. American miners tried to unionize and demand higher wages - they got strikebreaker'd. American automotive industry workers made an effort to unionize and fight for their wages - and the local industry died through outsourcing. Right now American workers are getting replaced by illegal immigrants en masse. And that America - in the rest of the world, the capitalist and his government are even less accommodating. Should we go over the United Fruit Company or the cocoa slave farms?

>decided to do another job
Yeah, and when he decides to do that - he requires new education and subsistence while he pursues said education, both of which are... owned by the capitalist. What an arrangement. I wonder what the capitalist shall do about the costs of said education due to this arrangement.

And the big point of Marx is that this is not some sort of evil plot by vile man - it's a natural and logical effort by the ruling class to protect it's interests. But it just as naturally follows that the proletariat also strives to protect it's interests as well, and there can be no final contractual balance to resolve this conflict.

[Anonymous No.22391437]

>>22390787
This kind of projection is completely useless against right-wingers considering communist circles are full of trannies and other mentally ill freaks.

[Anonymous No.22391496]

>>22391437
Which communist circles?

[Anonymous No.22391523]

>>22391496
Every one of them: /leftypol/, reddit, twitter, IRL commie groups etc.

[Anonymous No.22392534]

>>22386949
A lot of the Zoomers and people on Twitter who get their info on theory from breadtubers haven't actually read Marx and thought about his philosophy on a critical level, they just think he's a good guy because the funny man on the internet said do.

[Anonymous No.22392631]

>>22392534
Anyone that listens to vaush or any other e-celeb for political info is unironically a subhuman.

[Anonymous No.22392642]

>>22387640
Wait until the cops bash your face in for trying to stage a revolution, you'll look like that too.

[Anonymous No.22392648]

>>22392631
Oh absolutely, at that point you're getting told what to think instead of engaging with political ideas yourself.