UBI and neetbux keep money circulating thus in the bourgeois cycle. Consumption
>>1895633>Pic.Legitimately most of threads on front page every day but without even the effort of lustful image.
UBI under capitalism is socdem.
UBI under socialism is socialist.
>>1895628People wouldn't need UBI if housing was a right and most costs of living like food, gas and electricity were dirt cheap. The high cost is produced by free market capitalism so UBI would be useless because the same market would just increase prices.
>muh undiminished proceeds of labor
Can we just shoot all the Lassalleans
>>1895692only half-way decent post in this otherwise dismal, moronic, contrarian thread.
>>1895633>picrelThis.
Fucking OP don't put lewd pics in the OP on SFW boards. Smut isn't sfw.
>>1895696explain what is "dismal, moronic, contrarian" about this post:
>>1895633Also it is entirely possible that we might get UBI under capitalism. so the idea that it could merely serve as a "lesson" that reform doesn't work misses the point. The bourgeoisie won't pay the proletariat enough to consume the goods that they produce. This contradiction could easily be resolved with UBI. Rather than "proving reform doesn't work" it could postpone the collapse of the system for another few years.
>>1895697>lumpen refers to people who are in such an impoverished/uneducated state that they are likely to die before developing class consciousness.Shove your "salvation" doctrine back up your ass rightiod
>>1895702dismal: what you describe is already what happens with non-universal income. you attack a proposed change by raising problems it has in common with the status quo.
moronic: it's obvious you've not thought too seriously about the overall distributional effects of a universal income. you've just jumped to the convenient solution that it would be good for porky. (and yet he's been leaving it off the table since the Nixon years…)
contrarian: we will not get UBI any time soon, if ever. whining about it serves mainly as a way of building a distinct identity from socdems by going "um, you know that thing you think is good? actually it's bad. you should support my
even less probable idea.", and in the lamest possible fashion ("it's bad" rather than "it doesn't go far enough…")
>what's anticommunist according to self proclaimed communists
<The 8 hour day
<Universal healthcare
<Living in a house and owning that house
<Publicly funded schooling
>What's communist according to some self proclaimed communists
<Privatization
<War
<Police states cracking down on communists
<Civil war
<Suffering all the time
>>1895718don't forget abolition of sex
>>1895718it's all such tiring posturing.
i wish i was a socdem in an irrelevant little country. i wish i was on furry twitter explaining my countries fundamentally simple politics like they were inscrutable and complex to the 3 americans of my 50-100 followers after tweeting about an upcoming election where i genuinely hope my party does well because i'm somehow blissfully unaware that it's shit, a mediocrity of idiots spared obvious complicity in barbarity by our geopolitical irrelevance. in short, i really, really wish i wasn't here right now. i'm tired of it all.
not reading your post, just saving the picture so i can fap to it later
>>1895718Those "New Communists" are butthurt New Leftist PMCs reacting against their own failure by cosplaying as 1930s union activists and wannabe technocrats. Both revcoms and magacoms are fruits of this tree.
>>1895628you can have ubi in a communist society. It just isnt necessary for a communist society and you can also have ubi in a capitalist society.
Its just a tangentially related issue
>>1895718Why didn't you put UBI into your strawman list
>>1895732Under communism you'd just take stuff from a storage house like a library / cafeteria, and work would simply be a thing to do to quench boredom. There wouldn't be incomes.
>>1895731>self-description is dispositiveLassalle's program as mocked by Marx is the very essence of "lower phase" ideology.
>>1895736>posturing as if you are a competent teacher and not a rightoid ideologueMarxists.org on lumpenprole:
<The term was coined by Marx in The German Ideology in the course of a critique of Max Stirner. In passage of The Ego and His Own which Marx is criticising at the time, Stirner frequently uses the term Lumpe and applies it as a prefix, but never actually used the term “lumpenproletariat.” Lumpen originally meant “rags,” but began to be used to mean “a person in rags.” From having the sense of “ragamuffin,” it came to mean “riff-raff” or “knave,” and by the beginning of the eighteenth century it began to be used freely as a prefix to make a range of perjorative terms. By the 1820s, “lumpen” could be tacked on to almost any German word.Lumpen just means "anything we consider ourselves better than". You've built an ideology around being better than the lumpen, which is retarded PMC neo-Communist shit.
>>1895712>dismal: what you describe is already what happens with non-universal income.So? It compounds an existing problem and is a legitimate critique.
>it's obvious you've not thought too seriously about the overall distributional effects of a universal income. you've just jumped to the convenient solution that it would be good for porky. (and yet he's been leaving it off the table since the Nixon years…)Bourgeois cranks like Andrew Yang ran on it. It would be good for porky. It would also temporarily make a lot of working class peoples' lives easier, and potentially de-radicalize them and disorganize them at a critical and potentially revolutionary moment
>contrarian: we will not get UBI any time soon, if ever. whining about it serves mainly as a way of building a distinct identity from socdems by going "um, you know that thing you think is good? actually it's bad. you should support my even less probable idea.", and in the lamest possible fashion ("it's bad" rather than "it doesn't go far enough…")I'm not trying to build a "distinct identity from socdems" out of an asinine "contrarian" aesthetic, but because social democracy has failed the proletariat again and again.
Read this book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKnZvrTss20&list=PLXUFLW8t2snsYgyVmu7bm1vFbCXsjF54UEspecially this chapter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2twBBHJ1cs
>>1895628the next time someone uses a sexual pic that has nothing to do with the actual thread he should be publically executed
>>1895743>what the word meanFloating signifiers mean different things to different people and within different ideologies. Stop pretending that you are expressing some kind of truth, bot.
>>1895749I told you what the word meant. I did not endorse the concept. Reduce your blood pressure.
>>1895628>workers rights are not socialism because historical materialism / class antagonismThese people are worse than porkies.
>>1895757>workers rightsbetween equal rights, force decides
>We see then, that, apart from extremely elastic bounds, the nature of the exchange of commodities itself imposes no limit to the working-day, no limit to surplus-labour. The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm>>1895757
>>1895740name a single Lassallean born after 1864
>>1895763I agree on this text and I dont disagree with this analysis. My point was that if the communist party doesnt defend the proletarian class on all fronts then what is the party for? Class struggle continues even without us but we accelarate by pushing proletarian rights to 100% by liquidating bourgeoisie class and claiming collective ownership on property.
UBI is an extreme form of distributionism, a type of policy typically associated to the socdems. In so far as they are theorethically incapable of challenging the property of the means of production, they can only conceive of tax raises as the means towards achieving UBI; this is nothing but the defining limitation of their theoretical framework.
If you raise taxes to an inner-market-oriented bourgeois, he would simply raise the prices to maintain the same level of profit, therefore rending that part of the UBI ineffective.
If you raise taxes to the more developed, transnational export-oriented bourgeois, he would simply raise the prices of his products to maintain the same level of profit, which can have two possible outcomes: a) the bourgeois loses its competitiveness and privileged position on the global market, therefore crashing its national economy, or b) said bourgeois has such a dominating presence on the global market that he is actually able to raise prices without giving ground to competitors, therefore fueling the UBI of its home nation with the exploitation of the workers of another nation. In this second scenario (which may take place in Norway or some country like that), it would seem like you can reduce inequality without radically challenging capitalism, but you are merely transnationalizing exploitation; on a global scale, everything is exactly the same.
The only scenario in which bourgeois accept tax raises without proportional price raises to sustain profit is in fear of a socialist revolution (like when the USSR still existed). The only scenario in which the national produce can effectively be distributed without distortion is under social ownership of the means of production. In the current scenario, a working UBI is either exploitation of someone else or simply too insufficient to cover any significant amount of the cost of living.
I don't think UBI is anticommunist but it definitely is not communist in itself. They have the heart in the right place, the only thing us socialists should do is teaching them these contradictions so that they learn that the only way to achieve it is by socializing of the means of production.
>>1895628ah yes, the "if you become infirm and unable to work you will die in the street" brand of communism
>>1895628The primary function of the welfare state is to distribute money from people with incomes to people without incomes: children, the elderly, the disabled, and the unemployed. In pre-capitalist, there were social institutions that provided for the needs of members of society, regardless of whether they currently contributed to that society's accumulation of wealth. But as capitalism developed and traditional distributive structures like the family, the church, and the commune broke down, people became embedded in economies of scale where people relied on market forces rather than the goodwill of their neighbors to provide them with what they need. The advantage of this is that economies of scale can produce vastly more than what a peasant commune could ever hope to produce, but the expansion beyond local high-trust social networks meant that non-monetary incentives to produce disappeared. This all necessitated the existence of the welfare state, an institution which is vital for the continued well-being of society and will be for as long as we still live under economies of scale, which will be forever unless a nuclear war or a rogue AGI kills us all.
UBI is the ideal form of the welfare state, taking wealth from people who need it the least and distributing it equally across the population directly. Even under an exploitation-free workers-only utopia, with no profit, interest, or rent, it would still be necessary to tax labor income (the only form of income that would exist in such a society) in order to provide for the needs of people who don't work. Karl Marx explains this in the Gothakritik. You can't provide workers with the full value of their labor because society values other uses of its resources besides just compensating workers.
I know that I'm more explicitly egalitarian than y'all, and it's possible some of you are motivated towards socialism by desertist rather than consequentialist ideas, but you are presumably not randian enough to believe that old people should starve just because they're too arthritic to work in the coal mines.
>>1895633A progressive tax and transfer system takes more from the rich than it gives back to them. Worries that a UBI would somehow make the rich richer come from a misunderstanding of how redistribution works.
>meanwhile the workers and lumpen will spend it all on food/bills, further enriching the porkiesI disagree that it's bad for poor people to buy food.
>>1895674They would still need UBI even if goods were cheaper, for the reasons specified above. And capitalism does not make goods artificially expensive. That's not just me being a socdem. Marxists aren't supposed to believe that either. Competitive markets drive down prices to equilibrium.
>UBI would be useless because the same market would just increase pricesNot how markets work. DEFINITELY not how a Marxist is supposed to believe markets work. A UBI is not equivalent to pulling money out of the ether and giving it to people. Even if it were like that (say the government printed money to pay for the UBI without raising taxes), the rise in prices (inflation) caused by all that money printed would still fail to offset the gain in real purchasing power gained by the poorest members of society, as the rich consume more than the poor. If you tax and redistribute money in the form of a UBI, that doesn't result in higher prices, because the total amount of money in society is the same, and therefore demand is the same. If demand is the same and supply is the same, then price remains the same. Marxian economics predicts the same result. If the socially-necessary-labor-time required to produce goods remains the same, then price remains the same.
>>1895738If there's no income, and people only work to quench boredom, there probably wouldn't be very much stuff in that storage house. Videogames are much better at quenching boredom than work is. Libraries exist because states levy taxes, not out of the goodness of authors' hearts.
People won't sell their labor unless they receive payment for it, so you need factor payments (even if labor is the only factor of production you pay for), but factor payments are insufficient to satisfy the needs of society, so you also need transfer payments. That's social democracy in a nutshell.
>>1895776Anyone who still believes in "lower phase" is Lassallean in all but name. Self-identification is a spook.
>>1895813>but the expansion beyond local high-trust social networks meant that non-monetary incentives to produce disappeared"High-trust" is an ultraright cope. You're not fooling anyone, liberal.
>>1895813If I could do certain forms of labor without the pretense that it's a requirement for my survival, I'd make it a significant portion of my weekly routine. Like I would probably do even more labor than I currently do in such an environment.
though that might be an autism / adhd thing idkVideogames, books and such partially quench mental boredom, not physical boredom.
>>1895813>Marxian economics predicts the same resultYes, because Marxian economics is an exposé of capitalism, you senile boomer. Stop lying to yourself and everyone else
>>1895825>I don't care about history, I just want a lie that makes me feel superiorOnline politics in a nutshell
>>1895812That's not UBI, that's just healthcare
>le tax the rich!!!
no, kill the rich, torture the rich, dismember the rich, rape the rich, eat (literally) the rich
>>1895835kill the rich, behead the rich, roundhouse kick the rich into concrete
>>1895811That is not how taxes or prices work at all.
>If you raise taxes to an inner-market-oriented bourgeois, he would simply raise the prices to maintain the same level of profitWhich taxes? If you raise a capital gains tax, that won't result in higher prices for any commodity, merely in a lower rate of investment. If you raise a progressive income tax, that won't result in higher prices, merely smaller bonuses for business executives. If you levy a wealth tax, that won't result in higher prices. If one firm tries to raise prices to pay more in bonuses for its CEO to offset what he has to pay in wealth taxes, they could be outcompeted by another firm that doesn't raise prices. Prices in a competitive market are driven down to equilibrium. They can't be raised arbitrarily high unless one firm has monopoly power, or multiple firms are colluding to price-fix. Property taxes and land taxes are ideal cases of taxes which are paid entirely by property-owners and not passed off on consumers. Consumption taxes do raise prices, but they do so directly, and the extra price goes to the state, not the firm. The firm loses money on the deadweight loss of the consumers priced out of the market by the tax. There is only a minority of edge cases where taxes on the bourgeoisie can be passed off entirely to consumers in the form of higher prices, and that's consumption taxes on goods with inelastic demand. A tax on gasoline is an example.
>The only scenario in which bourgeois accept tax raises without proportional price raises to sustain profit is in fear of a socialist revolutionDemocratic governments pass policies which are to the detriment of the bourgeoisie all the time. The bourgeoisie are a powerful interest group in society, but they are not the only one. They don't have absolute control over the state. They don't need to "accept" anything. Taxes on property, capital income, and corporate profits do in fact hurt the wallets of the bourgeoisie, and get levied in liberal democracies anyway.
>>1895820I'm not advocating a return to small, tight-knit societies. I am advocating for a welfare state because it's a necessary component of a large, diverse, socially liberal society, which is what I want to live in. I do not support reactionary attempts to return to an imagined golden age by forcing conformity and homogeneity in the population with the hopes of turning back the tides of modernity.
>>1895822This amounts to a claim that you would do more work if you received less payment. This is clearly not your revealed preference, because capitalists wouldn't pay workers anything if wages were not a necessary incentive to work. I wash dishes for a living. I wouldn't do that if I didn't get paid. I value spending time with my friends more than I value washing dishes. But I value the money I get paid more than I value unemployment.
>>1895831>I can never tell if Roseflags are sincereI just want old britpol rose back. I miss him. He was sincerely quite amusing.
>>1895853>>1895854my internet failed me
>>1895840>I am advocating for a welfare state because it's a necessary component of a large, diverse, socially liberal society, which is what I want to live inI am advocating for you to take a swim in a canal for being an idealistic economic liberal who thinks your feelings and wants should matter.
>>1895832>being given unemployment benefits so I can pay for all of my living expenses including housing, clothing, food, etc. counts as healthcareso how's UBI shitty compared to this? not means-tested enough?
>>1895850"rich" is just a pithier way to say "bourgeois". correct anyone who misunderstands the meaning of it
This thread is ultimate proof this place has degenerated to reddit-tier sports team aesthetic faggotry. Literally most of the 'arguments' ITT boil down to "Hakim didn't say we need it" or "welfare queens". You should be deeply ashamed of yourselves.
>>1895879
>All imperial core nations have open borders.
No they don't. They have this hypocritical Shrödinger border simultaneously open and closed designed to put immigrants in vulnerable therefore exploitable position.
>>1895881>Literally most of the 'arguments' ITT boil down to "Hakim didn't say we need ityou are the first person to mention "Hakim" or "Welfare Queens" in this entire thread. Meds.
>>1895850>distinguishing class based on net worth or income level and not on relation to the means of production. couldn't be me.Where did they get this income though? Money doesn't come from nowhere. All wealth hoarders acquired their money by primitive and capitalist accumulation. The simple fact of owning wealth defines wealth-havers' relation to production.
A person's degree of OWNED VALUE defines their class—their function in society and their relations to production.
>>1895847Can we name one extant Communist nation with open borders? All imperial core nations have open borders. Communist nations have closed, militarized borders to protect the international proletariat by increasing conditions of labor; to forbid the creation of a slave-migrant class.
>>1895874A doctor can be rich without being bourgeois. It's an important distinction. There are wage/salary jobs which pay enough to become "rich" by some definitions. This is why it is important to specify bourgeois/proletariat over rich/poor.
Not all rich people are bourgeois.
Not all poor people are proletarian.
There are also antiquated classes that still exist in small numbers like aristocracy, or peasantry. There are even hunter gatherers still in some places, like the Sentinelese.
>>1895885since you deleted/ reposted let me redirect you to the response I made before you deleted/reposted.
>>1895882
>>1895884Obviously you are autistic and gay so let me explain. The obsession with "Lumpen" is hazoid idpol and repackaged reagnite politics. the other point is based on the obvious fact that everyone ITT vaguely references some authority without outright naming it. this is what marxoids do all the time. just trust me bro. yeah fuck that
>>1895882You bring forth Adam Smith's interpretation of primitive accumulation. You are just a "better" worker, you made your gains peacefully, etc. This hinders all analysis of the blood and past history from which your wealth came.
>>1895882the wealth you own is credit but nobody is ready for this
I agree and disagree
Nobody has claimed it is communist. It's the "solution" to inequality by liberals that at least give a little shit. Milton Friedman suggested it as the bandaid but culture has swung even farther right so now the popular idea is just have mass starvation and let people die on the street.
>>1895907except I'm not describing primitive accumulation at all. I'm describing the fact that I simply worked extra hours so that I could make above subsistence. Primitive accumulation is accumulation by dispossession carried out by the pre-capitalist ruling classes (i.e. the feudal lords, the proto-bourgeoisie, the guild masters, the slave traders, the colonial expeditions, etc.)
>>1895909interesting. explain further
>>1895933Yes but the qualification for friedman's "negative income tax" is that you actually have to work, which is better than UBI (which for some reason also gets dispensed to the rich).
But youre right that any government intervention is seen as le communism by the right who dont recognise the failure of the market, even where the most famous libertarian in the world did
>>1895840>That is not how taxes or prices work at all.The core of everyone of your counterarguments relies on the basic supply and demand equilibrium we are taught in an Econ 1 which is. IMHO, a somewhat limited and idealistic framework for analyzing markets.
You presuppose markets closer to perfection than to imperfection in which competition amongst capitalists would weight more than generalized class struggle in the form of either a higher level of exploitation to maintain productivity or a generalized raise in prices. In practice, I think, specially among the national markets of the Global South, this doesn't work like that.
If I am a bourgoise that's earning X USD in profits, it doesn't matter what kind of tax you raise, if after the tax raise I'm earning X-Y USD, I will (ceteris paribus) go through any means necessary to increase my profits in at least Y. If you make my property or land more expensive, I will raise prices to maintain profit. If you make my executives more expensive, I will raise prices to pay them the same or simply exploit them more. From the perspective of the capitalist, every tax you mentioned is rationalized in terms of a cost in his production process, and if the production is now more costly I must somehow make it more profitable, which can only be done, in an isolated moment, by increasing exploitation or prices. Technological advancements and competition of course make everything cheaper, but both these things were already at work in the previous equilibrium point and will be equally at work in the second equilibrium point; therefore, everything accounted for, the second equilibrium point can only be higher than the first.
For example:
>If one firm tries to raise prices to pay more in bonuses for its CEO to offset what he has to pay in wealth taxes, they could be outcompeted by another firm that doesn't raise prices. Prices in a competitive market are driven down to equilibrium.Why wouldn't that second firm raise prices too? They also have a CEO that wants bonuses. If in the pre-tax situation we had a certain market equilibrium (competition accounted for), we can only expect that if we apply a tax that affects every competitor equally the new market equilibrium will neccessarily be above the previous one.
>If you raise a capital gains tax, that won't result in higher prices for any commodity, merely in a lower rate of investment.I concede this point to you, lowering the rate of investment (until the bare minimum for maintaing their existence as capitalists) is another way the capitalists have to finance the UBI tax, but we don't want this either, in part because in the long run it results in a comparatively lower productivity and therefore comparatively higher exploitation and prices.
>Democratic governments pass policies which are to the detriment of the bourgeoisie all the time. (…) Taxes on property, capital income, and corporate profits do in fact hurt the wallets of the bourgeoisie, and get levied in liberal democracies anyway.The cake is only distributed as long as it keeps getting bigger. The bourgeoisie have more control over the State than what you think, not because they are some evil masterminds, merely because the common sense of every politician in the world presupposes that capitalists have a right over what they earn and what they own, and therefore taxes are only ever designed as warm, marginal wealth reductions in the context of an ever-accelerating wealth increase and concentration. Just take a look at any metric of wealth distribution between labor and capital in the XX century. The only time during which the gap got closer was during the golden years of strong trade unions and the constant threat of seeing half the planet under the red flag of socialism.
Savingbmoney is not exclusionary with being proletarized idiots.
One of the characteristics that distinguish the capitalist bourgueois from the proletariat and petty bourgs is that the real bourgs CIRCULATE their money.
The capitalist saves his money on stocks and investments always amplifying it. Never in banks
>>1895940David Graeber suggested that UBI could potentially be used to subvert the labor theory of value, and with it political economy itself (as was the ultimate goal of Marx's researches into political economy).
>>1895934You're describing a labor theory of property, after Locke, which is recognized as reactionary these days.
>>1895940>which is better than UBI (which for some reason also gets dispensed to the rich).Because the
social universality of UBI immunizes it against rightoids who want to whine about the "wrong people" being "rewarded" or whatever genetically incompetent video game logic you're trying to spit right now.
>>1895873Easy. UBI is a check to you to spend however, while healthcare, housing etc are checks to workers who then provide you with services and goods. Difference is that goods for free discourage capitalist relationships and encourage doing meaningful work
>>1895953>David Graeber suggested that UBI could potentially be used to subvert the labor theory of value, and with it political economy itself (as was the ultimate goal of Marx's researches into political economy).Yes and no. The LTV works where man is a machine (as the logic of modernity goes). Robots replace the need for humans but still preserve the labour of robots. Value is not self-created thus, but depends on the mechanics of the productive process.
Marx's abolition of the LTV which underpins political economy would mean broaching beyond the commodification of labour (like the surplus product of social production), but Labour here has 2 modes which marx recognises: Labour "in itself" (abstract labour) and labour-power as a commodity.
A postcapitalist society would preserve Labour but overcome labour-power in its social form.
Like in that black mirror episode where everyone runs on treadmills, socialism would be a society of Labour (where solar panels for example, create reserves of mundane energy). I think thats the line of thinking we can imagine.
But the idea that consumption determines Value is infantile and reeks of cartoonish prefigurements of post-scarcity.
>Because the social universality of UBI immunizes it against rightoids who want to whine about the "wrong people" being "rewarded" or whatever genetically incompetent video game logic you're trying to spit right now.Interestingly, most rightoids want a universal flat tax, so universality isnt a claim to a revolutionary politics.
>video game logic? You lost me on that last part.
>>1895953>David Graeber suggested that UBI could potentially be used to subvert the labor theory of value, and with it political economy itself (as was the ultimate goal of Marx's researches into political economy).UBI or universal services such as healthcare, education etc, are two different ways to go towards communism, so to say; we cannot just say "do UBI and it will be literally communism" because we are materialists and realists, not ultras. If we do UBI now, it will just perpetuate capitalist relationship, while universal services will encourage meaningful work
Think about it this way. How do you want to get a pit dug - by giving money to people and hoping that they'll pay diggers to dig, or by giving money to diggers directly? Like, YAH, this feels like not trusting people with their finances, "you oppress me by not letting me choose to buy iphone instead of paying off my student debt!" and such, but then iphone is not a necessary good lmao, not like food or healthcare anyway.
>>1895840>This amounts to a claim that you would do more work if you received less payment.No, because I would be receiving effectively infinite payment, as everyone would be. You'd be removing all paywalls that made payment necessary to begin with.
>I wash dishes for a living. I wouldn't do that if I didn't get paid.Someone would. People develop hyper-fixations about anything. If it weren't for capitalism, you could go do something you enjoy while someone that's really hyped about the process of washing dishes can get their dream job.
>>1895944>taxes are only ever designed as warm, marginal wealth reductionsOr tacitly negotiated payments for the system maintenance activities which capitalists cannot do, because the activities are against their immediate interest.
>>1895960>The LTV works where man is a machine (as the logic of modernity goes)"Works" as what? A tool of analysis, or as a moral norm? And didn't Engels write to a student of the historical materialist method apologizing for overemphasizing the economic aspects of their ideology, due in part to a lack of time to properly treat them, and in part to the historical conditions of the time?
>but Labour here has 2 modes which marx recognises: Labour "in itself" (abstract labour) and labour-power as a commodity.Recognizes in what context? Remember that
Capital is an exposition of capitalism, not a constructive critique, and that Marx specifically disclaimed that there was any action plan in
Capital:
<Thus the Paris Revue Positiviste reproaches me in that, on the one hand, I treat economics metaphysically, and on the other hand — imagine! — confine myself to the mere critical analysis of actual facts, instead of writing receipts (Comtist ones?) for the cook-shops of the future.
>A postcapitalist society would preserve Labour but overcome labour-power in its social form.Thanks for the warning. Dictatorship of the PMC sounds like something that needs to be prevented from happening again.
>I think thats the line of thinking we can imagine.You're too concerned with conserving your national social norms of servility, which I find detestable and unnecessary (as did Marx, by the way).
>But the idea that consumption determines Value is infantile and reeks of cartoonish prefigurements of post-scarcity.The point is to extend the experience of self-valorization to everyone, not just to capital. It is a social intervention that attacks the "truth" of the labour-wage relation directly, and therefore opens up a lot of interesting questions for societies to ask themselves about what they really value.
Remember, economics is only a suite of social relations. Economicism is mostly bunk. You should take this letter from Engels to heart, so that you don't reify capitalist categories.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21b.htm>>1895967>because we are materialists and realists, not ultrasYou're ultra-rightoid PMCs and you need to log off
>>1895963prole money in a savings account literally collects cents per month. When I hit 30 I had saved about 30k over the course of 10 years. Just setting aside cash each paycheck, and having no kids. That was collecting about 25 cents of interest per month in my bank.
>>1895906>hazoid obsession with lumpenif you're referring to this post
>>1895633 I wasn't trying to be "obsessed" with lumpen. Just pointing out that UBI would get spent on necessities by both proletarians and the "declassed" elements of society, whether that be disabled people who can't work, homeless, or whatever. It wasn't meant to be disparaging. Also lumpen is literally a category used by marx. It's not some recent innovation of reactionaries.
>the other point is based on the obvious fact that everyone ITT vaguely references some authority without outright naming it. this is what marxoids do all the time. just trust me bro. yeah fuck thatNobody said hakim or welfare queens. Face it. Point to a single post that implied either, and futher explain yourself.
>this is what marxoids do all the time. just trust me bro. yeah fuck thatThis is what you're asking us to do with your random assertion that people ITT are referencing "hakim" or "welfare queens." literally which posts are you talking about.
>i larp as marxist but i actually just want socdem neoliberal policies
Nu-leftypolGODS
>>18961211. you can want both
2. most neoliberals oppose UBI.
3. kys
>>1896053>>1896053>"Works" as what? A tool of analysis, or as a moral norm?Both. Decartes symbolises the dawning of modern philosophy with this sentiment. Man is a machine with a soul. But this is also what gives man over to his economic existence, as the fleshly artiface of robotic automata. Marx sees in this both a terrible truth but also a great lie. The truth is the fact of modern production, but as you say, man is not self-determined by the "sweat of his face" to have species-being. So the machine can come into its own essence by the means of production and man can self-relate to his being by culture. Today we are cyborgs. Tomorrow we are masters. (Just think of marx's derision of "dead labour" compared to "living labour". This is the basic alchemy of marxism, like how Christ must go to hell before becoming resurrected).
>Recognizes in what context?In the context of capitalist production, where Value is self-separated by the social relations of wage labour. In the first case, it is something "in-itself", but then has self-reference in the employment of human labour.
I'll pull up the preface of capital vol. 2:
>It is not labour which has a value. As an activity which creates values it can no more have any special value than gravity can have any special weight, heat any special temperature, electricity any special strength of current. It is not labour which is bought and sold as a commodity, but labour-power. As soon as labour-power becomes a commodity, its value is determined by the labour embodied in this commodity as a social product. This value is equal to the labour socially necessary for the production and reproduction of this commodity. Hence the purchase and sale of labour-power on the basis of its value thus defined does not at all contradict the economic law of value.So Labour has no Value, but can only be self-related by its social form in labour-power. Labour here also has no Value the same way machine labour has no Value. So Labour is inherent to material life, but only finds social being by commodification. However, in the case of overproduction we see a surplus of goods which cannot be sold and thus fall out of circulation - here is the material "fact" of Labour's import, yet it is likewise *unrealised* by capitalist society.
So what i see in the discrepancy marx makes is the distinction between Labour and labour-power.
Labour finds value by entering into capitalist relations, but marx wants to overcome value, and thus realise Labour in its immediate sense.
>Remember that Capital is an exposition of capitalism, not a constructive critique, and that Marx specifically disclaimed that there was any action plan in CapitalI never said Capital was a guidebook, but its insights clearly give vision to the overcoming of the system.
>You're too concerned with conserving your national social norms of servility, which I find detestable and unnecessary Elaborate
>The point is to extend the experience of self-valorization to everyone, not just to capital. It is a social intervention that attacks the "truth" of the labour-wage relation directly, and therefore opens up a lot of interesting questions for societies to ask themselves about what they really value. The transcendental critique here is in seeing that any threat to capital can never be implemented by the capitalist state itself. UBI cant be revolutionary, even if it can be helpful to people (in an anti-political sense).
>>1896110Are you implying that lower-functioning people would suddenly stop existing as soon as the revolution happens?
It is important to understand that society is produced, and reproduces through production: what happens at the factory door constrains or even determines what happens outside the factory door.
The trend of capitals becoming smaller and more movable proceeds, the same one Eduard Bernstein saw in his day. A cook in a small portable kitchen usually has time to throw a few pieces in the dishwashing machine for themselves between orders.
>>1896129-no you can't
-UBI is a strictly neoliberal policy and has no plausible benefits for the working class in a term longer than 3 years. The best of interests of the bourgeois is to increase the ammount of consumers
>>1896136>alchemyWhy don't you tell me exactly which party's tendency you're representing here, because I don't think you're speaking for Marx.
>>1896171>The best of interests of the bourgeois is to increase the ammount of consumersand yet UBI was not imposed in the 1970s-80s, in line with the neoliberal revolution. it was not imposed during the 1990s or 2000s, when it was bedded in. it was not imposed post-2008, when the system looked to be in crisis, and it was not imposed during or after coronavirus, when crisis struck again.
you apparently know the interests of the bourgeois better than the bourgeois themselves! what fools they are!
>>1896179They supplanted their need for UBI by simply increasing migratory flows and welfare.
Ubi is controversial and would met resistance.
The only sort of UBI that would be non-neoliberal would be one financed exclusively with wall street money
>>1896186>non-neoliberal>financedDerp
>>1896186>and welfarenon-pension welfare has been made more conditional (read: cut and had access restricted) in more or less every country since the 1970s.
>Ubi is controversial and would met resistance.it's controversial
with neoliberal economists! the general public have a much more positive view: their only concern is whether it can be afforded, the typical neoliberal whinge against any proposal to improve anything.
>>1896174Read my entire post and tell me im not representing marxist thought.
Marx calls Capital a vampire by analogy; is he invoking supernaturalism for having a vocabulary?
>>1896157I don't quite understand what you're yapping about, I'm merely saying socialism won't make dishwashing the dreamjob of anyone and it also doesn't [i]require[/i] dishwashing being the dream job of anyone in order to work. If you said to a normal person "oh yea, in socialism only people that actually DESIRE to wash the dishes would wash the dishes", they would rightfully laugh in your face. We either find the way to automate it and distribute the benefit in the form of less hours of work, or we leave the job to anyone that wants to do it while at least guaranteeing most of their needs would be satisfied.
>>1896219No, I'm trying to catalogue tendencies and their particularities and I'm trying not to prejudice my field work.
>>1896250When it comes to reading marx, i just try to read him plainly, along with the context he was borne from (like hegelian dialectics).
My own opinions are unimportant in being studious. By the same purpose i *personally* disagree with marx and marxists in some fields.
>>1895628>gives it to lumpen, or worse, to intelligentsiaAnon, that's probably more than half of the people who imagine themselves taking part in a revolution. At least stay quiet until it's over. Shhhh!
>>1896252>hegelian dialecticsSounds like petit-bourgeois "communism" has infected you.
Come on now, reading list
>>1896110I'm telling you, the dish-washing fandom is alive and strong. Autism is like my little pony cutie marks, it's baffling but it works.
>>1896267?
If you read capital, it is dripping with dialectics. Marx is a young hegelian who came from feuerbach. Not sure what your implications are.
>>1896110they're wrong in the detail, but right in the thrust of it.
if nobody wants to wash dishes en-masse, stop providing pre-prepared food en-masse. do things at a smaller scale. have people wash their own plates. different solutions for different cases, but ultimately, that's what you should be looking at.
everything should be done for its own sake. if communism just means the more efficient implementation of alienating capitalist labour where some spend all day in an enjoyable vocation while others toil on boring shit nobody wants to do, it's a farce.
>>1896276>dripping with dialectics>marx is a young hegelianTell me you haven't read
The German Ideology. You will see that Marx critiques Hegel's dialectics, like all Hegel, as terminally idealist, and instead formulates his own, by turning Hegel on his head. The Lutheran worldview of Hegel is clearly imprinting in your worldview.
>>1896285Yes i know marx turns hegel on his head by leading with the base rather than superstructure (and thus drawing the concrete from the abstract), but he still retains dialectics.
Marx's historical outlook is also clearly a negative transplant of hegel's own progressive vision, except the self-consciousness of Reason is replaced with the self-consciousness of production.
The issue with your cynicism is that you take critique to mean the revoking of something. This would also miss the point of sublation in marx's own ideas.
>>1896295Yes, and he dumps basically all of the rest of Hegel's apirituality crap that Zizek fanboys keep trying to bring back into it.
>you're cynical!Good.
>critique to mean the revoking of something.Only ONE definition of Aufheben comes anywhere close to this "uplift" sense to which you seem to be piously addicted. Tell me exactly where you get this perverse idea that every idea is sacred and should be preserved.
>>1896299where did i say every idea should be preserved? I am making the objective inference that marx is directly inspired by hegel despite being a critic. This descends into you nitpicking and being difficult.
Now you can be a critic of dialectics if you want, but dont pretend that marx wasnt a dialectical thinker himself. I am a critic of marx myself, but thats also because i respect him enough to be able to see where its possible for me to disagree (unlike a lolbert for example, who can only disagree with a charicature of marx).
Idk. Maybe all this spiralled out of control when i used the term "alchemy" which triggered the secularists who are ironically superstitious of bad words.
No one is giving anyone any basic income so you have nothing to bitch about.
>>1896304I'm not criticizing dialectics, by any means. What I am criticizing is
your immediate resort to transcendence and spiritualism and all that other aristocratic crap, your tendentious interpretation of every call for abolition into a call for increasing complexity, that just happens to scan with your CPGB-ish arbeit-macht-frei line and your terrible taste in television.
>>1896319Where did i spiritualise anything?
Alchemy is a form of distilation that just has esoteric symbolism. The context of my comment was appropriate.
And yes, history shows how things are not drawn from any zero-point of immanence (like the mythical founding of america), but is given from a long canon of events that necessitate themselves through dialectical tensions.
This is why marx calls his worldview "scientific socialism" for example, against any (pre)conceptual notion of egalité which utopian socialists cling to. Marx's thought is contextual - yet in dialectical fashion, particularity connects us to the universal by the fulfiment of its self-movement. Communism is the unrealised dream of all mankind ("socialism for the rich" et al).
So yes, there is no year zero. You have to bend into contradiction.
>>1895697i thought lumpen referred to people surviving via criminal means
>>1896332No it refers to unemployed too
>>1896332>>1896335Marx calls them the "reserve army of labour". They exist as the surplus-proletariat who cannot be integrated into the relations of production. Capitalism necessitates unemployment, so where there is a working class, there is a non-working class alongside them.
>>1896326>This is why marx calls his worldview "scientific socialism" for example OMG. That's not
Marx's "worldview", it's the official SPD worldview commissioned for the local political situation, and mauled into insipidity by Kautsky not so long after Marx was cold. How the hell did you get from Marx to Kautsky?
You are sorely lacking historical context. Well, it's a shit enough thread so I may as well post it all… (Heinrich,
An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital… Heinrich has worked on MEGA and has studied the development of Marx's thought extensively, so I am going to believe him before you all day long and I suggest you follow suit)
<Dühring’s success rested upon a strong desire within the workers’ movement for a Weltanschauung, or “worldview,” a comprehensive explanation of the world offering an orientation and answers to all questions. After the worst outgrowths of early capitalism had been eliminated and the everyday existence of the wage-dependent class within capitalism was somewhat secure, a specific Social Democratic workers’ culture developed: in workers’ neighborhoods there emerged workers’ sports clubs, workers’ choral societies, and workers’ education societies. Excluded from the exalted bourgeois society and bourgeois culture, there developed within the working class a parallel everyday life and educational culture that consciously attempted to distance itself from its bourgeois counterpart, but often ended up unconsciously mimicking it. And so it was that at the end of the nineteenth century August Bebel, the chairman of the SPD over the course of many years, was graciously honored in a manner similar to the way that Kaiser Wilhelm II was honored by the petit-bourgeoisie. Within this climate, there emerged the need for a comprehensive intellectual orientation that could be opposed to the dominant bourgeois values and worldview, in which the working class played no role or merely a subordinate role.
<Insofar as Engels not only criticized Dühring but also sought to counterpose the “correct” positions of a “scientific socialism,” he laid the foundations for the worldview of Marxism, which was appreciatively taken up in Social Democratic propaganda and further simplified. This Marxism found its most important representative in Karl Kautsky (1854–1938), who until the First World War was regarded as the leading Marxist theoretician after the death of Engels. What dominated the Social Democracy at the end of the nineteenth century under the name of Marxism consisted of a miscellany of rather schematic conceptions: a crudely knitted materialism, a bourgeois belief in progress, and a few strongly simplified elements of Hegelian philosophy and modular pieces of Marxian terminology combined into simple formulas and explanations of the world. Particularly outstanding characteristics of this popular Marxism were an often rather crude economism (ideology and politics reduced to a direct and conscious transmission of economic interests), as well as a pronounced historical determinism that viewed the end of capitalism and the proletarian revolution as inevitable occurrences. Widespread in the workers’ movement was not Marx’s critique of political economy, but rather this “worldview Marxism,” which played above all an identity-constituting role: it revealed one’s place as a worker and socialist, and explained all problems in the simplest way imaginable.
<A continuation and further simplification of this worldview Marxism took place within the framework of “Marxism-Leninism.” Lenin (1870–1924), who became after 1914 so influential, was intellectually rooted in worldview Marxism. He openly expressed the exaggerated self-confidence of this “Marxism”:
>The teaching of Marx is all-powerful because it is true. It is complete and harmonious, providing men with a consistent view of the universe, which cannot be reconciled with any superstition, any reaction, any defense of bourgeois oppression. (Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism)
<Before 1914, Lenin supported the Social Democratic center around Karl Kautsky against the left wing represented by Rosa Luxemburg (1871–1919). His break with the center came at the beginning of the First World War, when the SPD voted for war credits requested by the German government. From then on, the split within the workers’ movement took its course: A Social Democratic wing that in the next few decades would move further away—both theoretically and practically—from Marxist theory and the goal of transcending capitalism stood opposite a Communist wing that nurtured a Marxist phraseology and revolutionary rhetoric, but existed above all to justify the zigzags in the domestic and foreign policy of the Soviet Union (such as during the Hitler-Stalin pact).
<After his death, the Communist wing of the workers’ movement turned Lenin into a Marxist “Pillar-Saint.” His polemical writings, most of which were written within the context of contemporary debates within the workers’ movement, were honored as the highest expression of “Marxist science” and were combined with already existing “Marxism” into a dogmatic system of philosophy (Dialectical Materialism), history (Historical Materialism), and political economy: Marxism-Leninism. This variant of worldview Marxism served above all else an identity-constituting role, and in the Soviet Union in particular legitimized the political domination of the party and suffocated open discussion.
<Ideas in general circulation today concerning Marx and Marxian theory—whether these are appraised positively or negatively—are essentially based upon this worldview Marxism. Readers of the present work might also have certain, seemingly self-evident, ideas concerning Marxian theory that are derived from this worldview Marxism. But the sentiment Marx expressed to his son-in-law, Paul Lafargue, after the latter gave an account of French “Marxism” also applies to a large amount of that which assumed the label of “Marxism” or “Marxism-Leninism” over the course of the twentieth century: “If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist” (MECW, 46:356).
>fulfiment of its self-movementThe point, however, is to
CHANGE IT, counter-revolutionary PMCoid. First Heinrich:
<If dialectics is spoken of in a less superficial sense, then one can make a rough distinction between two ways of using this term. In one sense, dialectics is considered to be, according to Engel’s text Anti-Dühring, “the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought” (MECW, 25:131). According to this conception, dialectical development does not proceed uniformly and in a linear manner, but is rather a “movement in contradictions.” Of particular importance for this movement are the “change of quantity into quality” and the “negation of the negation.”6 Whereas Engels was clear that with such general statements nothing is understood about individual processes,7 this was anything but clear within the framework of worldview Marxism; “dialectics,” understood as the general science of development, was often viewed as a sort of Rosetta Stone with which everything could be explained.Now Marx and Engels:
<If we wish to rate at its true value this philosophic charlatanry, which awakens even in the breast of the righteous German citizen a glow of patriotic feeling, if we wish to bring out clearly the pettiness, the parochial narrowness of this whole Young-Hegelian movement and in particular the tragicomic contrast between the illusions of these heroes about their achievements and the actual achievements themselves, we must look at the whole spectacle from a standpoint beyond the frontiers of Germany.*
<German criticism has, right up to its latest efforts, never left the realm of philosophy. It by no means examines its general philosophic premises, but in fact all its problems originate in a definite philosophical system, that of Hegel. Not only in its answers, even in its questions there was a mystification. This dependence on Hegel is the reason why not one of these modern critics has even attempted a comprehensive criticism of the Hegelian system, however much each professes to have advanced beyond Hegel. Their polemics against Hegel and against one another are confined to this—each takes one aspect of the Hegelian system and turns this against the whole system as well as against the aspects chosen by the others. To begin with they took pure, unfalsified Hegelian categories such as "substance" and "self-consciousness"/ later they secularised these categories by giving them more profane names such as "species", "the unique", "man", etc.What, exactly, are you clinging to by hauling Hegel back in here after Karl and Fred threw them out?
>>1896355You are tedious
Okay, replace the word "worldview" with "perspective" and all your words dissolve into irrelevancy.
>What, exactly, are you clinging to by hauling Hegel back in here after Karl and Fred threw them out?They didnt "throw him out", they escorted him out and took what they wanted after a pleasant conversation with him.
Here again, you are exceedingly vulgar and confused. To not-be a hegelian is to not be an anti-hegelian. Once you grasp this, you can grasp dialectics in a fundamental sense.
If i am not a christian am i an anti-christian?
Protestants rebelled against the church in the name of God. Here, negation can bring essence to the negated. If marx preserves any of Hegel then he is preserving Hegel in the essence of his contribution.
>>1895891"rich" has a dual meaning
"has a lot of money" (normal meaning)
"bourgeois" (used in leftist propaganda because "bourgeois" is not snappy to say)
the meaning depends on the context
>>1896355>a Communist wing that nurtured a Marxist phraseology and revolutionary rhetoric, but existed above all to justify the zigzags in the domestic and foreign policy of the Soviet Union (such as during the Hitler-Stalin pact). Throw this shit out, the person you are quoting is a retard
>>1896450its some imperialist named "Michael Heinrich." It's crazy how people just cite imperialists as authorities on marxism
>>1896355>>1896450Yep, your Heinrich is a retard.
>Heinrich is an outspoken critic of what he calls "worldview Marxism" (Weltanschauungsmarxismus), for which Karl Kautsky was the dominant figure. This form of Marxism is characterized by "a crudely knitted materialism, a bourgeois belief in progress, and a few strongly simplified elements of Hegelian philosophy and modular pieces of Marxian terminology combined into simple formulas and explanations". Other prominent features include "a rather crude economism" and "a pronounced historical determinism that viewed the end of capitalism and the proletarian revolution as inevitable occurrences".<a pronounced historical determinism that viewed the end of capitalism and the proletarian revolution as inevitable occurrences
>Although the value of a commodity appears to be a material property, it is a social relationship, namely the relationship between "the individual labor of producers and the total labor of society". This does not mean that exchange produces value, but that only in exchange can value "obtain an objective value form"<only in exchange can value "obtain an objective value form"Fucking yikes, you are quoting a reactionary
>einrich calls into question Marxist theories giving a central place to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, as Marx himself neglected to include the argument in his published theoretical work.[9] And at the level of the reasoning of the argument, the mathematician Heinrich demonstrates that "a long-lasting tendency for the rate of profit to fall cannot be substantiated at the general level" with the argument we're given. [8]: 153 In order to safely deduce a fall in profit as a general tendency, Marx's argument requires the presumption that the rate of surplus-value grows faster than the ratio of capital to value, which cannot be mathematically demonstrated from the concepts with which Marx is working. While the general direction of movement of both quantities may be known—both the rate of relative surplus-value, and the ratio of capital to value, are taken in ordinary capitalist conditions to increase— neither can grow without limit, and easy conclusions about their comparative rates of growth are not forthcoming. Marx, Heinrich argues, later became cognisant of this difficulty. Over a decade after he wrote the manuscript that became. in Engels' edition, the third volume of Capital, Marx composed a mathematical manuscript where he deals at length with the case of rising profit-rates under an increasing value-composition of capital.Ah, so this is the fucker who inspired other idiots into believing that Marx didn't "solve" the tendency of profit to fall. Amazing
>Further, Heinrich is sceptical of the suggestion that crisis for Marx necessarily begets collapse, arguing that the collapse theory "has historically always had an excusatory function: regardless of how bad contemporary defeats were, the opponent's end was a certainty".Eurocommunists are castrated cucks
I dunno where to quickly search for him, but whatever opinions on the guy there are they say that he thinks that China is capitalist
>>1896355>>1896450Yep, your Heinrich is a retard.
>Heinrich is an outspoken critic of what he calls "worldview Marxism" (Weltanschauungsmarxismus), for which Karl Kautsky was the dominant figure. This form of Marxism is characterized by "a crudely knitted materialism, a bourgeois belief in progress, and a few strongly simplified elements of Hegelian philosophy and modular pieces of Marxian terminology combined into simple formulas and explanations". Other prominent features include "a rather crude economism" and "a pronounced historical determinism that viewed the end of capitalism and the proletarian revolution as inevitable occurrences".<a pronounced historical determinism that viewed the end of capitalism and the proletarian revolution as inevitable occurrences
>Although the value of a commodity appears to be a material property, it is a social relationship, namely the relationship between "the individual labor of producers and the total labor of society". This does not mean that exchange produces value, but that only in exchange can value "obtain an objective value form"<only in exchange can value "obtain an objective value form"Fucking yikes, you are quoting a reactionary
>einrich calls into question Marxist theories giving a central place to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, as Marx himself neglected to include the argument in his published theoretical work.[9] And at the level of the reasoning of the argument, the mathematician Heinrich demonstrates that "a long-lasting tendency for the rate of profit to fall cannot be substantiated at the general level" with the argument we're given. [8]: 153 In order to safely deduce a fall in profit as a general tendency, Marx's argument requires the presumption that the rate of surplus-value grows faster than the ratio of capital to value, which cannot be mathematically demonstrated from the concepts with which Marx is working. While the general direction of movement of both quantities may be known—both the rate of relative surplus-value, and the ratio of capital to value, are taken in ordinary capitalist conditions to increase— neither can grow without limit, and easy conclusions about their comparative rates of growth are not forthcoming. Marx, Heinrich argues, later became cognisant of this difficulty. Over a decade after he wrote the manuscript that became. in Engels' edition, the third volume of Capital, Marx composed a mathematical manuscript where he deals at length with the case of rising profit-rates under an increasing value-composition of capital.Ah, so this is the fucker who inspired other idiots into believing that Marx didn't "solve" the tendency of profit to fall. Amazing
>Further, Heinrich is sceptical of the suggestion that crisis for Marx necessarily begets collapse, arguing that the collapse theory "has historically always had an excusatory function: regardless of how bad contemporary defeats were, the opponent's end was a certainty".Eurocommunists are castrated cucks
I dunno where to quickly search for him, but whatever opinions on the guy there are they say that he thinks that China is capitalist
>>1896472Michael Roberts has refutations, supposedly
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ss-article-on-heinrichs-distortion-of-marxs-view-on-ltrpf.pdf
>Marx’s doubts about the validity of the Law of the Falling Rate of Profit (LFRP)So, that's how this shit is called. At some point, I was assaulted by a retard who kept screaming about Marx not actually proving the Falling Rate of Profit over some formality,and thus Labor Theory of Value was wrong
>>1896482So far, "the proletarian revolution" seems to have been well avoided, and the winning formulas for doing so characterized and implemented in the West Pacific managerial democracies. What is needed is not a feeling of certainty, but a feeling of urgency, of a window closing.
>only in exchange can value "obtain an objective value form">omg reacttionaryYou are a typical rhetoric goblin, omitting the exculpatory context to find a gotcha. Lame and anti-intellectual
<Rather, he understands Marx's theory as a monetary theory of value, which marks a paradigmatic shift from the pre-monetary labor theory of the preceding classical political economists, and also distinguishes Marx from the utility theory of neoclassical economics.You capitalists in drag are still trying to save capitalism by calling it "Marxist political economy" in 2024, lol. Everyone's onto that trick, and that's why nobody wants to organize with you.
>didn't "solve" the tendency of profit to fallPut your hands down and put your math skills on, rhetoric goblin. Picrels. Spot the error. Not that it matters either way.
<Now the question is whether Marx’s critique of political economy really loses anything without the “law of the tendency of the rate of profitto fall.” Many Marxists regarded this “law” as the foundation of Marx’s crisis theory, which is one reason why the debates were conducted with such vehemence. As we will see in chapter 9, Marx’s crisis theory does not require this “law.”
<For Marx, the law expressed something more general, namely
<<that the capitalist mode of production comes up against a barrier to the development of the productive forces which has nothing to do with the production of wealth as such; but this characteristic barrier in fact testifies to the restrictiveness and the solely historical and transitory character of the capitalist mode of production. (Capital, 3:350)
<Even without this, the limitations of the capitalist mode of production are already manifest in the fact that the development of the forces of production and the production of wealth are subordinate to the valorization of value, and this narrow goal unleashes a glut of destructive forces against humanity and nature. Whether the expression of value in the terms of capitalists and accountants rises or falls, it does not alter the fundamentally blinkered character of the capitalist mode of production.
>needing an epic saga that denies the actual critique of Marx in order to bring capitalism to the German proletariatLol. Lmao, even. Laughing at your larpy drama-addicted probably genitally mutilated burger self playing like you're all hard and shit. You're fooling no one, eunuch.
>he thinks that China is capitalistAny material analysis shows that they are. You're retarded if you think "Marxist political economy" is anything more than capitalism in its ideal average.
>>1896512>nobody wants to organize with you.Oooooh, an organization fetishist! Pray tell, why do you ignore millions large China's Communist Party? Not big enough organization for you?
>>1895909>>1895938Wishing this guy would explain what he meant.
>>1896512>"Marxist political economy" is anything more than capitalism in its ideal averageOh yeaaah, hit us with these truth bombs about how communists countries are a proof that capitalism has won and will keep on winning, and we must embrace reformism (until fascists kill you)
Hell, the retard you keep quoting is a TYPICAL Westoid leftist, moaning about degrowth, managing population decline, "progress is bourgeois" kind of shithead
>>1896516>communists countries are a proof that capitalism has won and will keep on winningWhat a retarded, adolescent reading. Go watch your TV preacher.
>Hell, the retard you keep quoting is a TYPICAL Westoid leftist>Western Marxism is badWorldview Marxism is a cult. Kys for needing an ideology.
>>1895891What doctor is a billionaire off their labored wealth?
>>1896472>>1896512Stop changing the subject and find the flaw in the argument
>>1896520They don't need to be a billionaire to not have to work for their living.
>>1896519>>1896521>Worldview MarxismIs not an argument but a scarecrow. Basically just a "business as usual (bourgeois) is apolitical, while marxism is yucky politics"
>interclassist reform that aims to maintain the middle-class's reserves is anticommunist
no shit!
>>1896534>believing in a made-up religion is okay when it's a movement's religionStill not an argument.
>>1896520>to be rich one must be a billionaire.interesting implication. "rich" is such a nebulous word. Not only does it ignore relation to the means of production, it is not even specific. to a very poor person a doctor with a few hundred thousand USD saved up might seem "rich" but here you are implying that billionaire is the threshold for rich. Thanks for adding to the original critique from this post:
>>1895850 however unknowingly you may have done so .
>>1896523Doctors work for a living and are usually "rich" by most poor peoples' standards.
>>1895813>And capitalism does not make goods artificially expensive. That's not just me being a socdem. Marxists aren't supposed to believe that either. Competitive markets drive down prices to equilibrium.Marxists believe that capitalism's tendency is towards monopolistic domination of markets which would inevitably lead to a declining standard of living for the average worker and which also has the side effects of imperialism/colonialism as well as constant wars as the bourgeoisie begin to seek new markets to fight in amidst a declining rate of profit.
What neoclassical crack are you smoking to try to claim that Marxists believe in a perfect never ending competitive market that never gets cornered? Hell even Keynes believed in a tendency towards monopolization he just didn't think it would necessarily lead to impoverishment of the worker as an activist government could take control and re-orient monopolies to behave productively (not in the economic sense but in the sense of fulfilling national plans and increasing prosperity) as he believed they would become increasingly divorced from the profit motive especially with government taking over investment functions.
>>1895934>I'm describing the fact that I simply worked extra hours so that I could make above subsistence. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm<This increment or excess over the original value I call “surplus-value.” The value originally advanced, therefore, not only remains intact while in circulation, but adds to itself a surplus-value or expands itself. It is this movement that converts it into capital.If you sell your labor for more than its costs of production, then you are engaging in a specific form of primitive accumulation and receiving surplus-value.
< S = M − V< S: your hoardings, surplus-value< M: your total wage< V: your living expensesThe total movement is:
< C → M → c+m< C: your labor< M: your wage< c+m: your necessary articles of consumption plus your hoarded surplus-value.This is accumulation—not yet capitalist, but primitive accumulation. Your hoardings are a form of surplus-value. This surplus value, your hoardings, came about by primitive accumulation, by definition, in the sense that it is pre-capitalist accumulation of surplus-value by which capital and capitalists are created.
>Primitive accumulation is accumulation by dispossession carried out by the pre-capitalist ruling classes (i.e. the feudal lords, the proto-bourgeoisie, the guild masters, the slave traders, the colonial expeditions, etc.)Capital is not created by capital. Capital is created by primitive accumulation. Those are the broadest, earliest forms of primitive accumulation that created the original forms of capital and capitalists; but, capital and capitalists are still created today by primitive accumulation. Primitive accumulation is the process that creates initial capital—how hoards and hoarders of value come to be. All initial capitals are first hoards of surplus-value, created by primitive accumulation of various forms.
Once long and obvious, primitive accumulation is now a faster, more obscure process that takes many forms. A hoarder of wealth's hoardings are quickly and inconspicuously transformed into capital in various forms, such as bank deposits.
i do not care about the TPRF, i do not care whether revolution is historically inevitable, if my sense that things ought to be better and that people should organize on this basis were to hinge on such minutiae and blind faith something would have gone horribly wrong. there is no practical way to "deploy" either of those pieces of information to a real world end. (contrasting with, say, analysis of class antagonism in general, which is very good for predicting the material interests of groups by looking at their composition rather than their purported worldview.)
I still can't forgive Denji for not banging her.
>>1895628autismbux is based though
>>1896731I agree, kids and elderly can starve to death
>>1896731It's not the early 20th century anymore. Stop treating lenin quotes as unquestioning spooky dogma
>>1895628Universal basic income is a neoliberal proposal to accelerate the commodification of the economy, privatize public services such as education and health, make the state subsidize low-skill companies that will offer less than the minimum for their workers and transfer taxes to the rest of workers to take class consciousness away from the masses by feeding reactionary ideologies with the resentment that this will create because the biggest capitalists will not pay for it.
The Marxist position is the guaranteed right to public employment, decommodification of health, education, housing, food, etc. for the use of workers' needs instead of the market.
We cannot forget the reduction in working hours, separating retirement from the financial market, nationalization and socialization of all means of production, all banks together with institutions that serve to speculate, natural resources, machines and land for social planning.
There is no ubi in socialism or low-stage communism:
<“Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.
<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.
<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
<Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.
<The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.
<Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.
<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)”https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Critque_of_the_Gotha_Programme.pdfHere is a link with Paul Cockshott criticizing ubi:
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/what-is-wrong-with-the-idea-of-basic-income/
>>1897156>There is no ubi in socialism or low-stage communismBut
<just as it emerges from capitalist societyWhich means a time we haven't yet seen, not 1875. Do you control whether porky hands out UBIs or not? Answer carefully; it goes on your psychiatric record.
>>1895636Actually, SocDems didn't cook this one up, for once. UBI was first thought of by Libertarian and AnCap type of people, as a form of "negative tax", by the likes of Hayek and Rothbart.
But yeah, it would lead to the undercutting of wages and a steep increase in rents. At best it would lift pressure from the unemployment but the inflation and price hike that would come with it would make up for it.
Not every unemployed person is a lumpen by the way.
>>1897190If you continue reading you will understand the difference in thinking only about the issue of distribution rather than production of the means of production.
Let's continue reading then:
<”Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
<Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.
<In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.
<But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
<But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
<a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
<[…]
<Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)”https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmI will also add a line from Lenin on what can be done before implementing a socialist economy:
<”Infinitely stereotyped, for instance, is the argument they learned by rote during the development of West-European Social-Democracy, namely, that we are not yet ripe for socialism, but as certain “learned” gentleman among them put it, the objective economic premises for socialism do not exist in our country… “The development of the productive forces of Russia has not yet attained the level that makes socialism possible.” All the heroes of the Second International, including, of course, Sukhanov, beat the drums about this proposition. They keep harping on this incontrovertible proposition in a thousand different keys, and think that it is decisive criterion of our revolution… You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?”
<~Lenin, “Our Revolution” (1923)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm Unique IPs: 49