/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22900422]

Holy shit, he was right about everything. Literally having a panic attack right now after reading his labour theory of value.

[Anonymous No.22900428]

>>22900422
Great post anon, very original but

[Anonymous No.22900487]

>>22900422
You're right but read Mattick, John Holloway, Simon Clarke, Pannekoek

[Anonymous No.22900493]

>>22900422
I'm not even a Marxist* but he was obviously right about the tendency of the rate of profit to decrease. Look at the increasingly desperate money-magic they've been doing to mask that fact.
*For me it's Hitler

[Anonymous No.22900521]

>>22900422
Regarding political economy, he was right the same way Hegel was about the general unfolding of history. Marx saw the power of dialectical science arriving from thinking to being, but the direction was the other way around. Likewise, we have to critically examine Marx's causal directions even if we agree with his fundamental insights. Georges Bataille demonstrated in "The Notion of Expenditure" and the volumes of "The Accursed Share" that the real core, our real problem, is not production but rather expenditure. Production is important and an arduous task, but the potent and dangerous part of every economy is the generated surplus. What are we going to do with it? This capital is burning a hole in our pockets. Capitalism is not dictated by how we arrive at M' (in M-C-M') but actually by what we do with M'. The Soviet Union collapsed because they never learned this truth. They were not able to create the consumer economy and light industry with their productionist paradigm, which is necessary to keep the sick modernist bureaucracies running until the next quarter.

[Anonymous No.22900825]

>>22900422
Laughably incorrect as labor itself has different value.

[Anonymous No.22900836]

>tfw being a nazi who has actually read marx and looking across another marx thread full of retards at the only marxist who has actually read marx
They're talking about the LTV again

[Anonymous No.22900838]

>>22900422
An onlyfans girl makes millions with a few pictures and videos. How can so much value be accrued with so little labor? Because value is subjective. The value of a thing is determined by what the buyer is willing to pay.

[Anonymous No.22900839]

>>Holy shit,he was right about everything. Literally having a panic attack right now after reading his labour theory of value.

[Anonymous No.22900846]

>>22900825
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.22900865]

>>22900838
> An onlyfans girl
Do you think the economy runs on onlyfans? Marx focuses his political economy primarily on the industrial backbone and the commodity because they are most relevant to the essential question of political economy: How is wealth created? Fringe examples like sex work (or many other unproductive forms of "labor") do not produce economic value, they just transform value into one form from another. This is why the economy would be just fine if you banned any form of sex work, entertainment, etc., but would completely collapse if you destroyed light and heavy industry.

[Anonymous No.22900884]

>>22900865
so then it’s not about labor, but which industries are more “important.”

[Anonymous No.22900897]

>>22900884
No, the crucial point is that your job is not labor if it does not produce value. And value is produced (in capitalism) by the transformation of natural resources into commodities. Sex work, for example, is not labor because it only transforms the value produced by labor into another form while consuming part of the value in the process. It is thus purely parasitical.

[Anonymous No.22900924]

All this needless arguing over nothing.

Communism is against human nature. If (and that is a big if) Communism is theoretically applied to a industrialized country, it would only lead to chaos, stagnation, regression and ultimately a collapse. All Bolshevik societies collapsed, look at Cuba and Vietnam and you will know I am telling the truth.

[Anonymous No.22900957]

>>22900924
> Communism is against human nature.
What do you think human nature is like? Being self-interested? Marxism is so focused on the economic self-interest of individuals and classes that it has developed serious blind spots regarding other human phenomena.

> All Bolshevik societies collapsed
China is still going strong as a Communist nation. And western ideologists are so dizzied by its rise that they turn around at the same spot, claiming hypocritically that the things they like are capitalist and the ones they hate are socialist.

[Anonymous No.22900960]

>>22900897
Who are you to determine what’s valuable? Value is subjective. You can try to create a society in which only certain types of work are allowed and see what happens, but people will leave when they get the chance. Stop resisting freedom and natural selection

[Anonymous No.22900971]

>>22900957
China is not a country ran by Communists. It is a country ran by the state-corporation alliance.

[Anonymous No.22900980]

>>22900960
Do you think, for example, that current France is wealthier than medieval France? But how could you say such a thing if value is subjective? Maybe a single medieval shoe is worth more than all the current French assets. Personally, I love the libertarian / American-right crowd becoming all of a sudden relativists when it comes to the economy, it really shows the internal contradiction of the fusion of social conservatism and free market ideology.

[Anonymous No.22900984]

>>22900980
>But how could you say such a thing if value is subjective?
lol how can you be this retarded

[Anonymous No.22900986]

>>22900980
I’m not even religious, but yes, morality is relative and subjective, and natural selection is king. That’s why capitalist countries shit on communist countries

[Anonymous No.22900996]

>>22900971
You can claim everything without argument: North Korea is actually anarcho-capitalist.
I wonder why every big corporation is state-owned in China, and why the CEOs that do not fall in line disappear all of a sudden.

[Anonymous No.22901004]

>>22900986
Maybe one Soviet potato was worth more than the entire Reaganomics GDP of the US? How can we know which country shits on other countries economically if value is subjective?

[Anonymous No.22901026]

>>22901004
whichever country wins in war
or
whichever country you would rather live in

So far no one has wanted to move to communist countries because they have failed

[Anonymous No.22901061]

>>22900971
>China is not a country ran by Communists.
The fact that brainwashed plebians still believe in this meme is amazing.

[Anonymous No.22901064]

He was literally right about everything, but most people are hivemind slave npcs and there's nothing to be done about it. I take it as a handbook advice on how not to be a slave myself without seeing a reason to liberate slave npcs from slavery themselves. Feudalism, communism, capitalism, they will always obey, slaves that they are.

[Anonymous No.22901069]

>>22900422
>everything will improve once power shifts from top to bottom and the exploitative hierarchy may then be abolished
name one instance of this happening

[Anonymous No.22901070]

>>22900971
Ops my bad meant to reply to , >>22900957
>China is still going strong as a Communist nation
The fact that brainwashed plebians still believe in this shit is amazing.
>>22901064
He was wrong about literaly everything and he was jobless loser who contributed absolutely nothing of value ot society. He lived on handouts like a bum.

[Anonymous No.22901073]

>>22901004
How about the fact that one isn't here anymore and the other runs half of the globe? Kek.

[Anonymous No.22901076]

>>22901070
Capitalists are like women, unoppressed, they become arrogant and annoying.

[Anonymous No.22901081]

>>22900846

it takes 1.5 hours to clean my condo. it also took 1.5 hours for a neurosurgeon to fix my dad's spine. are these two forms of labor equivalent in value as they both took 1.5 hours?

[Anonymous No.22901083]

>>22901026
> whichever country wins in war
Ah yes, the economy of the barbarians who overpowered the Roman Empire was famously more advanced and better in every way.

>whichever country you would rather live in
So it is subjective again?

[Anonymous No.22901086]

>>22901076
Communists are like children, you have to beat them in order to make them understand the difference between fantasy and the real world.

[Anonymous No.22901089]

>>22901061
Communists only in name. If you actually learn mandarin or cantonese and go and see the "actual" china from the inside, you will see how greatly it differs from the "perceived" china shown on screens.

[Anonymous No.22901091]

>>22900957

>China is still going strong as a Communist nation
Businesses in china are no longer owned and managed by the state

[Anonymous No.22901095]

>>22900957
>China is still going strong as a Communist nation.
I've seen this argument quite commonly among tankies on TikTok. Who are already the lowest of the low intellectually speaking. Do you genuinely believe this? The only reason China's economy has exploded is due to not caring about worker's rights and using their bug-like hordes of workers to manufacture as much as possible for export. That's literally it. Oh and that wealth is hardly shared. Most families invest their earnings in property. You know, the industry going bust due to mismanagement and oversupply.

[Anonymous No.22901096]

>>22901083
Countries are like organisms. If they die, so be it. Natural selection.

[Anonymous No.22901098]

>>22901089
Yeah i get that. i just think its funny when you ask these marxists discordtroons to point out a succsessfull communist country its always shithole that they themselves would never want to live in. Because there is nothing of value in those sorts of countries. Even if they call china ''communists'' they would never want to live there because even if they have abandonded communism and started to privatize its still a shit-tier place to live.

[Anonymous No.22901099]

>>22900422
Is Capital better than the Communist manifesto? Now, after I understand the basics of marxism does it make sense to read Capital , and should I read it before or after reading the Wealth of Nations?

[Anonymous No.22901102]

>>22901081
>it takes 1.5 hours to clean my condo. it also took 1.5 hours for a neurosurgeon to fix my dad's spine. are these two forms of labor equivalent in value as they both took 1.5 hours?
This is such a basic misconception. Have you even read the first chapter of Capital? The value of labor-time depends on many factors, like, for example, the advancement of the productive forces. Even within the same profession, there can be massive differences. Think, for example, how much more productive one hour of labor in carpentry is if you give them electric tools.

[Anonymous No.22901114]

>>22901095
Economic equality was never a Marxist concept. Marxism is about developing the productive forces and rewarding productive labor accordingly, and China accomplished what it set out to be. Western liberals may hate it, while they dream about sharing socks in their hippie-commune but real socialism is not concerned about their pseudo-Christian values.

[Anonymous No.22901117]

>>22900865
>Fringe examples like sex work (or many other unproductive forms of "labor") do not produce economic value
Bullshit. The money generated by only fans whores is spent on real estate, jewelry, clothing, smartphones, cars ,etc, all of which have dozens if not hundreds of factories in their production chains. This is why the SU collapsed. It never understood that frenzied activity driven by human vice is what creates technology, innovation and wealth.

[Anonymous No.22901123]

>>22901096
>Countries are like organisms. If they die, so be it. Natural selection.
Yeah, all right, but you are missing my point. Countries with healthy economies can die too due to unrelated reasons (like Rome, which was an economic superpower but was declining in every other regard). So this metric does not help us compare economies either. As soon as you accept value relativism, it is impossible to compare anything economically.

[Anonymous No.22901125]

>>22901114
Respectfully, you didn't answer the question at all. You just pivoted. I notice tankies do that often.

[Anonymous No.22901149]

>>22900422
>The marxist critique of capitalism is correct but communism is broken
What do

[Anonymous No.22901153]

>>22901123
how do you compare organisms? By observing which ones die out, and which ones survive and reproduce

[Anonymous No.22901170]

>>22901123
>As soon as you accept value relativism, it is impossible to compare anything economically.
but you can compare which countries have people risking their life to escape from, and which countries they are trying to go to.

[Anonymous No.22901174]

>>22900422
It's not an actual theory.

[Anonymous No.22901175]

>>22900825
He includes that. His metric is that things are valued by their minimum social labor required to produce the thing. Obviously some things require more or specialized labor. Every person I've seen criticize Marx on here literally have no idea what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.22901179]

>>22901125
>Do you genuinely believe this?
Respectfully, I thought this was a rhetorical question, considering that you followed directly with a statement explaining why it would be unreasonable to believe such a thing genuinely.
But, of course, I will clarify my position when requested.
There are a lot of misconceptions about Marxism floating around, partly due to Cold War propaganda, partly due to moronic hippie-leftists who did not deeply study the work of Marx and Engels. Yes, I genuinely believe China is communist in the true Marxist sense of the word. China has become a vanguard in the unfolding of history by resolving the contradictions within the stagnating Soviet economy and bureaucracy, and this striving is the real historic movement that Marx described as Communism. Of course, in the western imagination, Communism is a pie in the-sky utopia, but real Communism is the grimey reality of solving the puzzle of history. At its very core is the development of the productive forces, and who can deny that China did exactly that in the last 30 years and continues to carry the main load of the world economy.

[Anonymous No.22901185]

>>22901179
>but real Communism is the grimey reality of solving the puzzle of history.
so essentially the result of real communism is a shithole where no sane people would choose to live?

[Anonymous No.22901187]

>>22901179
These few word written by Marx himself alone proves ur entire post and china being communist wrong. Private property is allowed in China which is why its thriving somewhat but is still a totalarian shithole. China is a source of cheap labour and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.22901200]

>>22901175

so then we are talking basic economics, not marxist theory

[Anonymous No.22901235]

>>22901187
>>22901187
>At its very core is the development of the productive forces
How does that differ from capitalism?

[Anonymous No.22901273]

>>22901091
According to western media it is actually the opposite. If you live in China and know what is goin on there then please share. Im sick and tired of western media lies and biasses.

[Anonymous No.22901282]

>>22901026
>So far no one has wanted to move to communist countries because they have failed
The most populated country on Earth is supposedly communist and the amount of people leaving is minuscule baka

[Anonymous No.22901355]

>/lit/ pseuds read one of the most outdated, irrelevant, discredited economic theorists
Go join your nigger and faggot peers and work the counter at Starbucks

[Anonymous No.22901552]

>>22901282
>the amount of people leaving is minuscule
Lol. They're also driven by nationalism over class solidarity so you'll see them do shit like emigrate to a Western country and then still protest on behalf of China.

[Anonymous No.22901704]

>>22901200
I think the idea is that they think the market doesn’t determine the correct prices of things, and that they don’t understand that trying to determine prices to be what you think they should be has the same problems economists point out with homogenizing prices. Any sane person reads the end of chapter 1 volume 1 of capital and goes oh so the labor theory of value doesn’t actually give you value based on your labor and will cuck you if there was too much labor of your variety that year, then why would anyone want that over capitalism if it’s the same thing in principle? But what these kooks see through an obsession with fairness is that they need to personally determine how much food each person should grow to not be stealing from other food growers. You can see how they end up starving everybody.

[Anonymous No.22901732]

>>22901095
The chinese have an ancient custom of paying lip service to government officials and then just carrying on as normal, there is no communism there

[Anonymous No.22901739]

>>22901235
Which nations are actually capitalist and not keynesian mixed market economies or fusion states?

[Anonymous No.22901779]

>>22900865
This is what's hilarious, the commies don't realise that they are reformulating the labour theory of value into a subjective theory of value. Why do you think if we ban prostitution society won't collapse, but if we ban industrial production society will collapse? It's because people subjectively value industrial goods more than they value a prostitute. You may claim that industrial production is 'socially necessary labour' but what is socially necessary is entirely subjective. You're just admitting that labour plays no role in value; you can't have both. Either value comes from labour or it comes from subjectivity. I could spend countless labour digging a pile of dirt and it will be worthless because people, according to their subjective desires, don't want a pile of dirt. Socially necessary = subjective. Therefore, value can't come from labour

Just read what you are writing. According to you, who operates in a Marxist framework, there must therefore be no capitalist exploitation at a brothel because supposedly sex work is 'unproductive' and doesn't produce economic value. There can only be so called capitalist exploitation if surplus labour is extracted by the capitalist, but you just said that sex work doesn't come under that notion.

[Anonymous No.22901790]

Augusto destroyed Marx.

[Anonymous No.22901799]

>>22901273

What position does Jack Ma hold as a government employee?

[Anonymous No.22901805]

>>22901704

what really fucks Marxism in the ass from an economic perspective is that post industrial communist states require centrally planned economies, and those always fail

[Conspiracy anon No.22901937]

Thread already has a decent amount of posts, and it’s 63 posts with 26 posters, so I assume it’s going to be a committed handful of posters going back and forth with each other in discussion/debate, and I might get lost in the hubbub, but: the Masonic hidden-hand gesture in Marx’s pic in the OP is really fascinating.

Picture to the left: is FIG. 34. SIGN OF THE MASTER OF THE SECOND VEIL, taken from “Duncan's Masoic Ritual and Monitor”, by Malcom C. Duncan, [1866].
https://sacred-texts.com/mas/dun/dun08.htm

This pose is admittedly attributed to being a convention of portraiture and (later) photography from the 18th to 19th centuries, Wikipedia explains it thus: “The pose appeared by the 1750s to indicate leadership in a calm and firm manner.” It was popularized in portraits of Napoleon, and then, “The pose, thought of as being stately, was copied by other portrait painters across Europe and America” (ibid).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-in-waistcoat

Nevertheless, I still see something eerie about it and the coincidental similarity with a Masonic gesture. It’s sort of like all the one-eye symbols you can find in pop culture, magazines and journals, fashion photo-shoots, pictures or music videos of celebrities/music artists, etc. which you can easily find if you look for it (compilations of them are a quick online search away), and which can be dismissed as just a funny or quirky thing, them trolling, or just a pose photographers like, but it’s still a little spooky and makes you think.

[Anonymous No.22901972]

>>22901805
Some people may see this as a “boomer cuçkservative point”, but this brings up horseshoe theory to me. I think there are many good critiques of the flaws of capitalism or the negative results it can lead to, good critiques and analyses even from socialist or Marxist perspectives, but it’s this core notion of a centrally planned economy (implying strong authoritarian state control) that ultimately seems to make Marxist/communist societies just as bad as or worse than the capitalist system they criticize. I bring up horseshoe theory because Italian fascism and German National Socialism also included a strong authoritarian control of or right given to the state of intervention in the economy approaching a centralized planned economy.

Most communist thought seems like a dangerously messianic, utopian, misguided worldview. It’s a secularly messianic view, not the Messiah of the Jews, Jesus, the Mahdi of the Shi’ites, Kalki, or Rudra Chakrin returning/incarnating to wipe out the evildoers and institute a golden age, but, instead, again, a secular one based on political and economic revolution, the idea of a classless stateless society where private property ownership disappears, the means of production are owned in common, even money disappears, and all
this after a dialectical progression from capitalism to socialism to communism ; the “final battle of good and evil” is paralleled with the revolution of the proletariat and seizing of the means of production. The “New Jerusalem” is the final government-less state conforming to the slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, where everyone just sort of happily agrees to all be communists and work for the benefit of the whole without a fuss, and everyone gets exactly what they need, without any of the “exploitation of the capitalist system”. It’s a fundamentally self-centered view, too, where one believes the ideology/group one adheres to will ultimately be the one shared by all the world and that takes over the world in the Golden Age of the End of History (just like some of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc., all believe it is they uniquely who will end up rulers of the world after the “Apocalypse”).

The historical track record attests to what a disaster such utopian thinking is (the communist specifically). Yet, in the Western world, especially in leftist circles and academia, being some type of Marxist or communist isn’t looked askance at as much as being a “fascist” or “Nazi” is, even when it’s fundamentally a very similar authoritarian project of top-down instituting one’s views on a nation, multinationally, even in theory as much of the world as one can, the idea that it will create a utopia, they also require everyone conforming to this ideology and gladly sacrificing/submitting their individual will to the collective, in a drastic reorganization of ordinary political, social, and economic mores.

[Anonymous No.22901981]

>>22901937
let me tell you something, faggot, Marx was used and abused by the illuminati. Get to knowing buddy we won't wait around forever for you tards to catch up

[Anonymous No.22902063]

>>22901972
>but it’s this core notion of a centrally planned economy (implying strong authoritarian state control) that ultimately seems to make Marxist/communist societies just as bad as or worse than the capitalist system they criticize
Its not theory. Central economies lead to a 13 year waiting list to buy a car (trabant, east germany) and massive bread shortages in a country full of wheat because there's no working combines (84-85 soviet grain shortage). Unlike capitalism, the needs of the people go unmet because there isn't sufficient pressure to meet them. look at healthcare in Canada as a good example of a governments failing to achieve their mandate yet banning private, life saving treatment even though people will die as a result.

[Anonymous No.22902105]

>>22901200
The Basic Economics that you reference, if I understand you, includes profit margins in the final price and value. In Marxist theory, profit margins are seen for what they are, value created by labor for which the laborer was not paid and which the capitalist appropriates to himself.

[Anonymous No.22902187]

>>22902105
So what you are saying is laborers should rent the capitalists equipment and market their own goods themselves?

[Anonymous No.22902262]

>>22901117
lmao how many succesful onlyfans girls do you think actually exist? there's not that many of them that make enough money to buy all that shit, their influence on the economy is completely negligible.

[Anonymous No.22902264]

>>22900422

The attention you're looking for is outside anon, not on your computer screen.

God bless, and take care of yourself.

[Anonymous No.22902308]

>>22902262
Only fans brings in 2.5$ billion in revenue. That's not the money made on the platform by the creators, mind you, just the company's take. In order to generate that money, horny simps have to work a job. That money is then spent by the whores themselves and the company. Take this idea of monetizing vice (fast food, fashion, video games) and you create a ton of economic activity, which leads to greater tax revenue for the state, and capital development (better machines). The tax revenue can then be spent on technology. There are no "socially essential economic sectors" in any meaningful way.

[Anonymous No.22902320]

too bad hes a cringe atheist materialist

[Anonymous No.22902730]

>>22900422
>>22900493
obligatory

[Anonymous No.22902739]

>>22900422
Stop posting this fake marxist

[Anonymous No.22902808]

>>22902105

>The Basic Economics that you reference, if I understand you, includes profit margins in the final price and value. In Marxist theory, profit margins are seen for what they are, value created by labor for which the laborer was not paid and which the capitalist appropriates to himself
Conversely, any loss or debt the capitalist takes on is not the responsibility of the laborer. commies keep forgetting that part.

[Anonymous No.22902818]

>>22900422
I hope this is bait, OP, because otherwise you are literally being hoodwinked by this pic related
In either case, OP is a fag

[Anonymous No.22902835]

>>22901089
Fucking WRONG

communism is NOT an economic system, it is a totalizing ideology, a cukt religion
Marxist socialism is only the MEANS to the end, not the end. Chicoms adopted market reforms via dengism because quite simply there would otherwise be no more chicoms. Even the USSR was secretly completely dependant on the black market to get goods to households.

It's also funny as fuck to me that dengism is brant identical to corporate fascism in practice just as juche is nearly identical to nazism, just as Xi Jing Ping lurches China from corporate fascism into national socialism

[Anonymous No.22902844]

>>22902187
Rent and interest are ways of extracting value from other people's labor

[Anonymous No.22902848]

>>22902808
Neoliberals have underwritten any risk by large corporations through government bailouts, the cost of which ends up falling on the workers. This is the end game of capitalism, the total concentration of power behind capital interests in order to fully exploit workers and squeeze them more and more and strip away freedoms more and more.

[Anonymous No.22902874]

>>22902848
>fully exploit workers and squeeze them more and more and strip away freedoms more and more.
Is it not ironic to you that communism did this 100 times worse

[Anonymous No.22902879]

>>22900897
sex work transforms food (natural resource) into naked pictures (commodities)

[Anonymous No.22902898]

>>22902874
I am no defender of communism, where in any of my posts did I give you that impression?

[Anonymous No.22902901]

>>22902063
Communism had sufficient pressures, there wasn’t an issue of incentive, the problem of communism is more fundamental than that. It has no price data, it cannot possibly meet necessary outputs without accurate input prices.
>>22902835
It didn’t just depend on black markets and personal garden allotments for people to feed themselves, it depended on capitalism existing outside of its bubble to spy on, not for its innovations but for its markets. They depended on spying to get price data, without which it never would have been possible even for its 70 years of terror. Chiefly they depended on hong kong, which is why it was tolerated by china.

[Anonymous No.22902903]

>>22902898
>le evasive commie argument
So what do you defend, stop playing games with me and teach me

[Anonymous No.22902912]

>>22902903
Marx has valuable things to teach us. It's important to accurately understand him. This doesn't mean you have to defend communism. Can you really not comprehend this?

[Anonymous No.22902917]

>>22902901
I meant internally but yes this is a great point. The Americans listing the price-fixing in East Germany and the shortage suddenly ending and prices coming down is a perfect example of how prices also serve as signals of supply and demand just as much a actual value in the marketplace.
The technocrats thick they can get around this thru advances in technology such as AI and Big Data

[Anonymous No.22902934]

>>22902912
>Marx has valuable things to teach us.
Stopped reading right there

[Anonymous No.22902950]

>>22902901

>Communism had sufficient pressures
13 year waitlist for a shitty two stroke car in East Germanym 43:1 supppy demand ratio. explain what pressure car buyers can exert on their government to build another car manufacturing plant and why this never happened in practice .

[Anonymous No.22902966]

>>22902934
Your loss, but don't act like you have any understanding of the topic at hand.

[Anonymous No.22902997]

>>22902063
Thank you anon, I was being unsure of myself and using hemming-and-hawing, equivocating language out of a misguided way of going about things, trying to be too open-minded about and semi-respectful of what I really just think, when you boil it down and look its historical track record, is a complete and total catastrophic disaster (communism is).

[Anonymous No.22903001]

>>22902912
>more evasion
You really must understand why I hate you, I don’t treat you this way. What valuable thing does Marx have to teach me, if you are going to biblethump me at least cite some verses

[Anonymous No.22903011]

>>22903001
I already explained how he views labor and how profit represents the value above and beyond the cost of raw materials + labor costs. Thus, it represents value added by labor for which the commensurate price was not paid. The extra value is then appropriated to the capitalist. There is no need to get emotional over a simple analysis of how production occurs under the capitalist model.

[Anonymous No.22903090]

>>22903011
This zero sum implication of trading our labor is a false premise. Through selling his labor to the capitalist the laborer can and indeed does profit much more greatly than he can on his own, why is there nothing to be said of the value of the labor added to by the capitalist? I really disdain the notion that capitalism is a bad thing, there is no basis for this, perhaps you can argue that there is a better thing but the capitalist has done nothing but a service to the laborer and that is before even considering the massive increase in the quality of his consumer life. There is more to the value of the capitalist than his possessions as well, his work adds value to the value of his laborer, his brand name on the market, the wide scale corporatization of his company affording more work, progressives in the past who have sought to destroy trusts and break up a company into tiny blacksmith firms only decrease the laborers ability to build wealth by selling his labor to the capitalist.

Planned economy is also impossible because you cannot rationalize price data, it is beyond any one person or a whole groups decision on what it should be. But let’s ignore that tidbit assume the stand point that a better system than freedom is possible, why is freedom the enemy of that system? Why can you not just go work for mondragon and leave the rest of us alone? This is an especially irritating part of communism, what justification is there for totalitarianism?

[Anonymous No.22903092]

>>22902848
>Neoliberals have underwritten any risk by large corporations through government bailouts,
That isn't a facet of capitalism, which by design allows better run organizations to devour those that are mismanaged, inefficient or unproductive. I often see commies fall back on this argument but it's the fucking government that's bailing them out, the government you want to massively increase in size. You're pissing in your own mouth.

[Anonymous No.22903191]

>>22903090
Again, you seem to be slotting into predefined notions and incapable of grappling with nuance. I think free markets are important, the problem arises in the centralization of power in corporations which shifts the balance of bargaining power and depresses wages. Capitalism has no regard for what's best for society, thus we can see how easily China has been able to shift vital supply lines from the USA and the West to themselves, giving them extreme levels of power over the economies of these other countries. This is because the free market centralizes power in larger holdings owned by fewer people, the people who can grow their capital the most (through profit). Thus the Capitalist sells the future, sells out his own country, all in the name of profit. The Capitalist system can't avoid this, since if any individual Capitalist prioritizes his country or his children's future, he will have a lower rate of profit than those willing to do whatever it takes for maximum profit.

Thus, the optimal system must include limits on exploitation and protect the integrity of society from being ravaged by the greed and control exercised by Capitalists. Again, think in terms of mixed economies, maintaining a free market in the true sense, a market that all citizens can access and have a stake in, not a market dominated by a few corporate robber barons.

Freedom is important, but in a free market, the freedom slowly drains away from those at the bottom of the economic distribution and the power concentrates at the top. This is an existential problem for the free market and no amount of blind faith in market forces will change that.

I can further explain how toxic the Capitalist precepts are to individual people in society if you wish, exemplified by every Western country's loneliness/meaninglessness epidemic.

[Anonymous No.22903217]

>>22903092
>allows better run organizations to devour those that are mismanaged, inefficient or unproductive
What better way to devour other organizations than by using one's power to leverage the government to prop you up? Neoliberalism is a project created by Capital interests in order to shore up their position, they rise to power in a free market, and then dismantle any avenue for anyone else to compete with them. If you care to know my actual ideal, it would be for a free market system which empowers those at the bottom to be full participants and for small businesses to flourish and for those at the top to be prevented from leveraging their power to manipulate the market, which is what will always happen because it is too tempting for those whose sole object is profit.

[Anonymous No.22903222]

>>22903191
>, exemplified by every Western country's loneliness/meaninglessness epidemic
we've had 500 years of "capitalism", all of which Marx bitched about, and it's only in the last 30-40 years of prog-ideology fueled neoliberalism have any of these social ills really exploded

[Anonymous No.22903232]

>>22903222
Marx "bitched" mostly about the industrial revolution, and that is where social horrors proliferated. Further back he mainly spoke about land rights and how, one way or another, they are rooted in violent seizure.

[Anonymous No.22903240]

>>22903217

>What better way to devour other organizations than by using one's power to leverage the government to prop you up
Yes, governments are easily corrupted and you want a bigger one

[Anonymous No.22903242]

>>22903232
why do communists always move the goalposts?

[Anonymous No.22903243]

>>22903240
>Yes, governments are easily corrupted and you want a bigger one
Where have I called for a government bigger than the current incarnations? Also, can you only think in terms of size of government? Not goal or principles or values?

[Anonymous No.22903246]

>>22903242
Not a communist, but you've demonstrated you are incapable of comprehending anything and instead default to your NPC programming. How disappointing.

[Anonymous No.22903311]

>>22903243
>Where have I called for a government bigger than the current incarnations
Are you a communist that doesn't believe in state owned business and centrally planned economies? because if so you aren't a communist.

[Anonymous No.22903323]

>>22903311
Norway has a state owned oil industry, are they communists?

[Anonymous No.22903505]

>>22903191
God I hate the word nuance, all it really means is I don’t know.
>the problem arises in the centralization of power in corporations which shifts the balance of bargaining power and depresses wages.
Besides this being shifting the goal post and utterly anti Marx, it is a fantasy that has never been proven. Private monopolies that have existed, thought really disputably being monopolies, have only lowered prices and been a boon to work for, and they couldn’t even depress wages unless they employed every laborer. In the case of public monopolies created by government regulation that have increased prices those too were great to work for, that is actually one of the failures of public monopolies they pay their workers too much.
>Capitalism has no regard for what's best for society
What is best for society is nobody’s ability to define, society isn’t even something that actually exists.
>china
I don’t see the issue here, am I supposed to resent that the best place to live becomes the best place to live and that might not be where I live? Is that not arguing that we should desire more capitalism at home? I’m not going to be sold on nationalism, all that is going to do is make life harder, increasing prices in order to not be outbid by a better producer. That is a real harm for workers.
>profit
This is such a loaded word for you people, profit should be considered a wholly good thing. More profit is more capital is better living. It is precisely those higher profits that lower prices through investment in production, that give more people chances to join the capitalist ranks through ventures.
>exploitation
I hate this word too, there is no such thing as capitalist exploitation, trades are not zero sum, working is voluntary done over inhabiting worse conditions, no subsistence liver can dream of conditions like ours, of our work conditions our living conditions and our life spans.
>mixed economies
This is the actual evil you are protesting, a mixed economy is just crony capitalism, tariffs and excessive taxes all coming down to the consumer and worker.
>Freedom is important, but in a free market, the freedom slowly drains away from those at the bottom of the economic distribution and the power concentrates at the top.
Explain how, give examples, you are really just talking out of your ass this entire post. Making up a boogeyman that doesn’t exist, without even explaining why it happens.

As a side note on monopoly, if it were a problem, which it isn’t, it would be easily solvable by free market unions, which are just labor monopolies (and also fuck everything up like monopolies and are a really shitty thing, you should know that the history of unions is intertwined with the history of racism). Maybe unregulated capitalism is the path to your ideal society, a single mega corporation dealing with a single union of all the workers, a true balance of power between owners and arbitrators. Now that actually is marxist accelerate bby

[Anonymous No.22903532]

>>22903505
Side note on profit, leftists seem to think profit is synonymous with higher prices and reduced wages, actually the opposite is true, the most profit goes to who does the most business, and the most business goes to who finds the lowest prices and the most workers

[Anonymous No.22903545]

>>22901805
>post industrial communist states require centrally planned economies
The entirety of the first world is already a centrally planned economy,

[Anonymous No.22903546]

>you see actually the piece of rock I have dug up from 10 feet down is actually more valuable than the bar of gold you found on the street because I have spent more effort digging it up than you did finding it!
great fucking theory.

[Anonymous No.22903556]

>>22903546
The LTV might be something desirable if it were just that, what they are really saying is that all labor is collectively owned by society and they believe they can personally determine what labor is appropriate and what labor has effectively been stolen from the community by being wasted. The age old criticism of communism of who takes out the garbage was ironically the opposite of the problem communism had in practice, they had massive wait lists for janitors and other assorted shitscrubbers, what nobody wanted to do was management and engineering. Nobody wanted to be CEOs or experts taking the blame for industry that simply could not work with rationalized theories of value.

[Anonymous No.22903573]

>>22903556
sorry I don't understand what you are saying.

[sage No.22903657]

>>22903532
I bet you think Adam Smith is a leftist

[sage No.22903676]

>>22903505
> Private monopolies that have existed, thought really disputably being monopolies, have only lowered prices
Land is a natural monopoly and is an example where instead of businesses competing to offer the lowest price for their goods or services, landlords instead exact the highest price that can be paid. If you can't understand this, you lack the most basic ability to comprehend economics and will forever have massive blind spots in your worldview.
>What is best for society is nobody’s ability to define, society isn’t even something that actually exists.
This is like saying "morality doesn't exist so it doesn't matter how horrible we are to people".
>crony capitalism
As I stated, there is no other way for Capitalism to exist. If setting up "crony" relationships benefits the Capital holder, then any Capitalist system will come to be dominated by cronies. You have failed to even address that this is the obvious end point of the Capitalist profit centered incentive model.

I have noticed that free market defenders have an absolute conniption when it comes to monopolies, as you seem to be having. First you say monopolies private monopolies are debatable whether they have ever existed, then you say government monopolies are bad because they pay workers too much, then you say monopolies aren't a problem anyway because labor unions can create their own monopoly (which contradicts your own post, since no union would ever have a monopoly on all labor!)

And you accuse me of talking out my ass? You wouldn't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

[Anonymous No.22903703]

I prefer fascism.

[Anonymous No.22903723]

>>22903657
I absolutely think he was a terrible man, so did rothbard, it is no wonder marx has a field day quoting him in capital.

>>22903676
Landlords do not exact the highest price, the highest price does not even mean the most profitable price, landlords lease for what they can not what they want. More than that though landlords are an important part of a functioning economy, they are engaged in the price discovery of land. Thomas Sowell has a personal story about renting out his house for half the price of its property taxes because he couldn’t get anyone to rent it for more and it was better to have something than nothing.
>morality
Kantian ethics are important to ancap thought, meanwhile moral relativism abounds the left
>crony capitalism
This is an issue of government power over the economy and nothing else.
>First you say monopolies private monopolies are debatable whether they have ever existed
Yes, you can only point to large market shares not entirely controlled markets, and there is no actual ability to do any cornering of the market and price hiking.
>then you say government monopolies are bad because they pay workers too much
Government sponsored monopoly fails because it becomes top heavy yes, in the meantime people are paying double what they should and nobody gets to use the service as we saw with the CAB, point is it’s great to work for a monopoly empirically speaking.
>then you say monopolies aren't a problem anyway because labor unions can create their own monopoly (which contradicts your own post, since no union would ever have a monopoly on all labor!)
This is exactly my point retard, unions aren’t possible on a free market and neither are monopolies because they are the exact same thing. Monopolies either A) don’t exist or B) aren’t a problem.

You’re a retarded faggot.

[Anonymous No.22903740]

>>22903723
Also.. the very notion of there being a society is immoral, its only purpose as an abstraction is to justify the sacrifice of individuals

[Anonymous No.22903773]

>>22903723
>Government sponsored monopoly fails
like Aramco right? or Equinor maybe?

>unions aren’t possible on a free market
how's la la land?

[Anonymous No.22903785]

>>22903773
Well I can hope they aren’t, point is union lovers have nothing to worry about without government
And if you haven’t noticed, our government is collapsing

[Anonymous No.22903836]

>>22903545
>The entirety of the first world is already a centrally planned economy
The WEF decides where companies in the USA build.factories?

[Anonymous No.22903838]

>>22903323

>Norway has a state owned oil industry, are they communists
Is.every business in Norway state owned?

[Anonymous No.22903842]

>>22903323
>are europeans faggots
Yes?

[Anonymous No.22903854]

>>22900422
He was part of the money elite inner circle, which people simply went on to carry out their plan for international world politics which he knew, thus making him appear prophetic.

[Anonymous No.22905131]

>>22900493
Except that the marxist observation on the rate of profit only really makes sense within the LTV but not in the real world.
Marx claims that the rate of automation is inversely proportional to the rate of profit because within the LTV the human work that goes into a good determines its value.

But that is horseshit.
Neither does human work determine the value of a good, nor does automation necessarily lower the value. It may lower the costs, but beyond that it really doesn't have that much of an impact.

Take beef liver as an example.
You can slaughter a cow and sell its liver. It doesn't matter if it was cut out by a human or a machine. A pound of beef liver will never cost more than five bucks, because nobody fucking wants it.

The drop in rates of profit you are seeing in modern day economies is mostly due to monetary shenanigans and the central banks fumbling their price stability schemes.
It's not even conceptually related.

[Anonymous No.22905437]

>>22903546
another smallbrain unable to comprehend "average socially necessary labor time"

[sage No.22905493]

>>22903740
Human beings are society by nature. The idea that we are ONLY "individuals" is abhorrent to our very being. So much so, that solitary confinement is an extreme form of torture. We require the society of our fellow man. Your view of "sacrificing of individuals" is actually the root cause of so many modern social ills, you are literally the problem. While it is true, as Freud pointed out, that society will always be the single most oppressive force on an individual, this does not justify the obliteration of society, since, as I have mentioned, this would be the obliteration of the spirit of man himself. Thus, we must work to ensure society exists to provide the most widespread benefits, through the instantiation of rights. Denying society, or wishing it's destruction is an evil doctrine.

[sage No.22905505]

>>22903723
It's hilarious how ignorant you are. "Landlords do not exact the highest price" and then immediately contradict yourself with "landlords lease for what they can". You monumental moron. The point is they lease for the highest they can. Obviously. Again you demonstrate your inability to comprehend anything.

[sage No.22905507]

>>22903838
Ah, so the government can own centrally important industries but as long as they leave some free market, it's not communism?

[sage No.22905512]

>>22903546
"Minimum. Social. Labor."

Why are so many idiots content to misunderstand a theory and then claim their misunderstanding of the theory is dumb? No, friend. It's you that is dumb.

[sage No.22905520]

>>22903546
"Socially necessary labor time" refers to the average quantity of labor time that must be performed under currently prevailing conditions to produce a commodity. THE AVERAGE, not a single outlier example.

Why are so many idiots content to misunderstand a theory and then claim their misunderstanding of the theory is dumb? No, friend. It's you that is dumb.

[Anonymous No.22905841]

>>22900836
If you truly read Marx you would have know how he obliterated the origins of Nazism: Lassalle and Fichte. Go goon elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.22905880]

>>22905841
On the contrary, I know that the real "origins of Nazism" (??? presumably you're referring to nationalist socialism, not the NSDAP specifically) lie in Fichte's closed commercial state (a surprisingly short book highly worth reading), Friedrich List's Nationalökonomie, and Adam Müller's corporatism. This is a much more vibrant tradition than just a single line culminating in the NSDAP. For example, Werner Sombart, whom Engels said was the only German intellectual to understand Marx, advocated a Deutscher Sozialismus that was essentially in this tradition, and that he saw as sublimating Marxism, which was contaminated by French materialism, English political economy, and a purely secular reading of Hegel, under Gans' influence. (It's interesting to compare the political economy of Marx's Left Hegelianism with that of Right Hegelians, and of course neo-Hegelians like Treitschke and Gentile - incidentally, excerpts of Treitschke's Hegelian-Machiavellian political theory are available in a very short English book). Max Weber was also influenced by this tradition, as of course was Oswald Spengler's "Prussian socialism" in Preußentum und Sozialismus. Perhaps the most interesting representatives of this tradition are Othmar Spann (Der Wahre Staat, recently available in English) and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck in a more indirect way.

All of these people tried to systematize corporatism and nationalist socialism and in many, many ways they moved far beyond Marx, whose empirical predictions failed within Engels' own lifetime. It should also be remembered that by 1900, most socialists imply thought Marx was a way gooderer political economist, the in-house political economist of the socialist movement but still fundamentally a political economist in the bourgeoise sense. They had only a very hazy conception of historical materialism and in fact it was the norm to say that Marx was too confusing for anyone but specialists to read - hence Engels' high praise of Sombart, one of the founding fathers of German sociology (along with Weber, Simmel, and Tönnies), and who was a Marxist at the time. Marxists at the time mostly read Engels' Anti-Dühring, which is now considered an embarrassment as it is a highly bourgeois philosophical justification of socialism in exactly the way Marx and Lenin didn't really like.

There were maybe a handful of actual Marxists during the heyday of Marxism; most German socialists were nationalist socialists themselves, corporatists, etc. Almost NOBODY was an internationalist communist in the later, retrospectively hyper-orthodox Luxemburg fashion, let alone in the fashion of today's pseudo-Marxists. The latter don't even know that Marx and Lenin were both perfectly fine with nation-states continuing to exist for generations after the communist revolution, and that both of them actually thought the international communist revolution must proceed THROUGH individual, nationalist-socialist revolutions by necessity.

[Anonymous No.22905898]

>>22905880
I haven't even mentioned more subtle links like Ernst Jünger's Jungkonservativ-era writings and the socialist dimension of his theory of "the worker," which greatly influenced Heidegger's mature phase. Some random links regarding right-wing political economy and socialist theory, for anyone interested:

>Othmar Spann
https://counter-currents.com/2013/03/othmar-spann-a-catholic-radical-traditionalist/
>A general overview of the Conservative Revolution
https://counter-currents.com/2012/08/the-german-conservative-revolution-and-its-legacy/
>Jünger
https://counter-currents.com/2011/04/ernst-junger-the-figure-of-the-worker-part-1/
>Jack London (yes, that Jack London)
https://counter-currents.com/2016/01/how-i-became-a-socialist/
https://counter-currents.com/2016/01/capitalism-socialism-and-dysgenics/
>Strasser
https://counter-currents.com/2011/05/otto-strassers-new-europe-part-one/
>Moeller van den Bruck
https://counter-currents.com/2012/08/arthur-moeller-van-den-bruck-the-man-and-his-thought/
>Louis de Bonald
https://counter-currents.com/2011/05/bonalds-economic-thought/
https://counter-currents.com/2011/03/bonalds-theory-of-the-nobility/
https://counter-currents.com/2011/06/louis-de-bonald-on-divorce/

[Anonymous No.22905902]

>>22905880
>>22905898

[Anonymous No.22906419]

>>22901081
> But the value of a commodity represents human labour in the abstract, the expenditure of human labour in general. And just as in society, a general or a banker plays a great part, but mere man, on the other hand, a very shabby part,[14] so here with mere human labour. It is the expenditure of simple labour power, i.e., of the labour power which, on an average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual. Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is given. Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labour, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labour, represents a definite quantity of the latter labour alone.[15] The different proportions in which different sorts of labour are reduced to unskilled labour as their standard, are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers, and, consequently, appear to be fixed by custom. For simplicity’s sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making the reduction.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#:~:text=But%20the%20value%20of%20a,here%20with%20mere%20human%20labour.

[Anonymous No.22906619]

>>22900422
I’ve been putting off reading it because I know I’ll have this reaction. I love the American economic philosopher, Henry George. Similar thoughts but more American.

[Anonymous No.22906807]

>>22905507

>Ah, so the government can own centrally important industries but as long as they leave some free market, it's not communism
means of production are seized or they aren't
>some
The vast majority of Norways economy is free market

[Anonymous No.22906959]

>>22900422
>Holy shit, he was right about everything. Literally having a panic attack right now after reading his labour theory of value.

[sage No.22907013]

>>22906807
So the government seizing the means of production in a vital industry like oil production is okay as long as there is a free market for other businesses?

[Anonymous No.22907030]

>>22905841
Ah yes, the thinker who metaphysically collapsed the world on itself through a misinterpretation of Hegel