/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>Marx and Engels did talk about the middle class
lol i never understood why people who clearly have never read marx insisted almost religiously on this, like they both use the term multiple times. is it some burger thing?

Debunked? You think it's cute with the Os or something? I don't believe anywhere in the world would it be pronounced that way aloud. This is why I don't like these forums. Always some counterproductive nonsense going on that if you don't participate or you question it you're called an outsider.

>>2239214
>focusing this much on a single word unrelated to the subject
Do you genuinely have autism or are you just trying to derail the thread?

full quote is more nuanced

> The kernel of the second party — the Whigs — consists of the merchants and manufacturers, the majority of whom form the so-called middle class. This middle class — which includes everyone who is a gentleman, i. e., has a decent income without being excessively wealthy-is, however, a middle class only compared with the wealthy nobility and capitalists; in relation to the workers its position is that of an aristocracy, In a country like England, which lives only by industry and therefore has a multitude of workers, people will be much more conscious of this than, for example, in Germany, where the middle class comprises the craftsmen and peasants, and where such an extensive class of factory workers is unknown. As a result, the Whig party will be forced into the ambiguous position of the juste-milieu as soon as the working class begins to be conscious of itself. And this is taking place now. The working class is daily becoming more and more imbued with the radical-democratic principles of Chartism and is increasingly coming to recognise them as the expression of its collective consciousness. However, at present this party is only in process of formation and therefore cannot yet act with full vigour.

>>2239224
Are you really going to ignore the full paragraph because of your uncharitable interpretation of "so-called"? This place never ceases to amaze.

>in relation to the workers its position is that of an aristocracy
I don't know how you can even interpret this in any other way.

>>2239224
Neither proletarian nor capitalist, aka middle class.

>Having to shore up a two paragraph newspaper piece by Engels written in 1842 to make your argument
>5 to 10 years before any of their more arguably foundational works
>25 years before Capital was even written
This is reaching, and you know it. And we already had this thread, it's still up, for what reason did you see in making a new one? Attention?
>>2239201
They do use it, nobody argues against this, but their definition of middle class (largely relating to the petit-bourgeoisie) is very different from the colloquial definition used today (anybody of who does not define themselves as "poor", nor "wealthy").

And as >>2239224 points out, this article has a lot more nuance then OP posits. This reeks spamming ctrl-f on literally every single article ever written by Marx or Engels in order to try and win some argument in OPs head, as opposed to genuine research. There is a reason this was never brought up in the previous thread.

>>2239227
are you going to ignore the entire article where it becomes clear that quote is about English politics and right afterwords we're presented with a different middle class in germany of craftsmen and peasants instead of gentleman and professionals?

>>2239237
>the middle class manifested differently before capitalism became fully developed in the world
No shit.

>>2239235
The positions of Marx and Engels throughout their lives didn't really vary as wildly as you're pretending they did.

>>2239243
>they did ignore it
predictable

>>2239235
eh if you are considered middle class by the standards of bourgeois society CHANCES are you ARE middle class

>>2239231
Multiple anons responded to this in the previous thread, you disingenuous pseud. You refuse to read the entirety of what is written before and after this, his use of hyperbole, and how his respone to Dr. Sax doesn't support your claim when making the point about housing not being a solution to the proletariat and how even "lesser" classes having housing (like the peasentry) does not eliminate the peasantry as a subject.

>>2239247
>pseud
Nobody is a bigger pseud than democrats who need to pretend you can have wealthy proletarians.

>does not eliminate the peasantry as a subject
You're the ones doing this by saying the middle class isn't real or that it's pretty much synonymous with proletarian.

>>2239237
>>2239245
>ignoring
You're projecting hard.

>different middle class
Both are middle class as stated by Marx and Engels, what point are you even trying to make by stating the obvious fact that the majority of the middle class in England at the time was composed of a different group from Germany?

>>2239252
Democrat as in believes in democracy, idiot. The absolute state of this place I swear.

>>2239235
>And we already had this thread
Sorry I forgot we have to make space for threads about religion and culture this week.

>>2239224
>>2239235
nuance? marx was rly cooking when saying ideology and class background blinds you
i cant find the source but i also remember either marx or engels saying that to proles the petit bourgeois and the bourgeois are the same shit
also marx saying the size of the middle class grows as capitalism matures

>>2239253
Im just stating what the article states why u mad bro

>>2239255
republican as in believes in republics, idiot. the absolute state of this place I swear

>>2239263
yall mad af for why lmao. All I did was post the full quote lol so sensitive

>>2239266
Democrat has always been a word for advocates of democracy, unlike republican.

>>2239243
>The positions of Marx and Engels throughout their lives didn't really vary as wildly as you're pretending they did.
Read Engels early attempts at economic theory (inspired by Marx), then read Marx's more developed theory in Capital I.

>>2239255
>Democrat as in believes in democracy, idiot. The absolute state of this place I swear.

Proletarian democracy and democratic centralism are explicit communist goals, idiot. The absolute state of your brain, I swear.

>>2239263
>i cant find the source but i also remember either marx or engels saying that to proles the petit bourgeois and the bourgeois are the same shit
>also marx saying the size of the middle class grows as capitalism matures
And this is a refutation of what we are saying how? We aren't saying petit-bourgeoisie are proles, we are saying that proles don't stop being proles because they own some kind of house.

>>2239258
No, but you could at least not repeat the same topic with the same image, as opposed to just bumping the old thread.

>>2239249
>Nobody is a bigger pseud than democrats who need to pretend you can have wealthy proletarians.
Not a democrat, not even largely a proponent of "democracy".
>You're the ones doing this by saying the middle class isn't real or that it's pretty much synonymous with proletarian.
Not a single person ever did this, in this thread or the last. It's that how Marx uses middle class is largely in relation to the petit-bourgeoisie, while you use "middle class" in an entirely different way.

>>2239246
>eh if you are considered middle class by the standards of bourgeois society CHANCES are you ARE middle class
Practically everyone in the states considers themselves "middle class". If your position isn't severely precarious, very few people define themseves or others as poor. You'll have people living paycheck to paycheck who will still largely define themselves as "middle class" in contrast to those poorer then them.

Now include the next sentence after that instead of expecting us not to read your source pussy.
>In a country like England, which lives only by industry and therefore has a multitude of workers, people will be much more conscious of this than, for example, in Germany, where the middle class comprises the craftsmen and peasants, and where such an extensive class of factory workers is unknown.
Engels is saying that middle class is a more meaningless term based on nation by nation basis rather than anything concrete based off property ownership YOU STUPID UYGHUR

>>2239269
ngl Im just gonna assume this is a burgerbrain moment and soccer/futbol sorta thing were in the states democrat means DNC affiliate but something else every else in the world.

>>2239214
Usually I'd say fuck off then, but the deboonked thing is sh*rty speak, so critical support to you.

>>2239197
Im not part of the poor working class im le middle class because of my income :)

Man, why did you start a new thread?

>>2239197

Who cares, the communist manifesto isnt a bible replacement, nobody cares what marx said some day. To me, the core socialist message is inequality bad

>>2239227
>>in relation to the workers its position is that of an aristocracy
I mean the point very clearly is that the 'so-called' middle class is actually the English aristocracy, which existed (albeit not as powerful) as a class in England back then. Marx is starting his observation from the point of the wealthy bourgeois (a middle class only compared with the wealthy nobility and capitalists) and then from the point of the working class (in relation to the workers its position is that of an aristocracy). The middle class meant the pauperized aristocracy which was thinning out as a class and merging with the wealthy bourgeois. Not what is today usually meant with the middle class.

>>2239566 (me)
Like, you could say that part of the intelligensia in Russia is another example of a 'middle' class. It also was pauperized during towards the end of the XIX century but still most had some passive income from exploiting peasants. They weren't decadently wealthy like the actual Russian nobility, and they also engaged in political life. It really helps no one to quotemine Marx without historical context. It's just unproductive. Please think.

Effortful quality bait

>>2239559
>To me, the core socialist message is inequality bad

"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" and was the slogan of the bourgeois revolution which brought France out of feudalism and began its transition to Capitalism. Marx says in Capital "Between equal rights, force decides." He was trying to show how even when the letter of the law says we are equal the existence of class society shows that we are not.

We have political equality but we lack economic equality. But the simple straightforward goal of economic equality with no asterisks is not the goal of Marxism-Leninism, but the goal of unscientific, utopian, reformist, petty bourgeois Lassalean Socialism, embodied in the Gotha Program which Marx criticized thoroughly, and whose slogan was "labor is the source of all wealth" and whose political goal was to lobby the bourgeois state (in the age of Bismarck no less) to establish worker owned cooperatives and for the working class todirectly receive the undiminished proceeds of their labor, with no portion set aside for replacing means of production, expanding production, emergency funds, etc.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Lenin furthermore deeply criticized the idea that socialism is simply about equality or rectifying inequality:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

>Political equality is a demand for equal political rights for all citizens of a country who have reached, a certain age and who do not suffer from either ordinary or liberal-professorial feeble-mindedness. This demand was first advanced, not by the socialists, not by the proletariat, but by the bourgeoisie. The well-known historical experience of all countries of the world proves this, and Mr. Tugan could easily have discovered this had he not called “experience” to witness solely in order to dupe students and workers, and please the powers that be by “abolishing” socialism. The bourgeoisie put forward the demand for equal rights for all citizens in the struggle against medieval, feudal, serf-owner and caste privileges. In Russia, for example, unlike America, Switzerland and other countries, the privileges of the nobility are preserved to this day in all spheres of political life, in elections to the Council of State, in elections to the Duma, in municipal administration, in taxation, and many other things. Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights. Does our learned liberal Professor Tugan now under stand the difference between equality in the sense of equal rights, and equality in the sense of equal strength and abilities? We shall now deal with economic equality. In the United States of America, as in other advanced countries, there are no medieval privileges. All citizens, are equal in political rights. But are they equal as regards their position in social production? No, Mr. Tugan, they are not. Some own land, factories and capital and live on the unpaid labour of the workers; these form an insignificant minority. Others, namely, the vast mass of the population, own no means of production and live only by selling their labour-power; these are proletarians. In the United States of America there is no aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat enjoy equal political rights. But they are not equal in class status: one class, the capitalists, own the means of production and live on the unpaid labour of the workers. The other class, the wage-workers, the proletariat, own no means of production and live by selling their labour-power in the market. The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

>>2239197
He's explicitly talking about English society you massive retard.
Back to >>>/siberia/

>>2239819
>which brought France out of feudalism and began its transition to Capitalism
Feudalism was capitalism because everything is capitalism

>>2239840
No… under capitalism the primary form of labor is wage labor, the primary form of production is commodity production, the center of labor is urban factory, and the technological means of production are continually revolutionized by means of automation, miniaturization, combination of processes, increase speed, etc. Labor power is sold as a commodity by the worker to the capitalist firm or individual in exchange for a wage. The capitalist firm or individual skims the surplus value in order to expand production by purchasing more land and more means of production.

Under feudalism the primary form of labor is serf labor, the primary form of production is agricultural, the center of labor is the farm, and the technological means of production change more slowly due to the pre-industrial nature of feudalism. Labor power is not commodified. Peasants are tied to the land they live on, lords own the land and extract surplus labor in the form of land rent, which is usually paid in kind in the form of crops or animal products.

The entire system of exploitation of labor is different under these two forms of class society.

>>2240068
>under capitalism the primary form of labor is wage labor,
Bullshit, no such rules exist. Capitalists simply use labor and capital, theres 57 variations on how labor and capital getr used in practice

>>2240107
The very term "capitalism" was specifically invented to describe the contemporary (at the time) historical developments: Enclosure of the commons, Industrialization, Proletarianization of the peasantry, the rise of the bourgeoisie, the fall of the landed aristocracy, and profit extraction taking precedence over rent extraction. Are you pretending to be stupid on purpose to waste my time?

>>2240120
>The very term "capitalism" was specifically invented to describe the contemporary

Says who?
Capitalism is just an abstraction to describe what humans always do economically, which is to use labor and capital to create wealth.
(Land+Tools)+Laborers=Wealth
Land+Tools=Capital
Some say Land should not be accounted as capital and that it should be its own category, but i digress.

>>2240124
>Capitalism is just an abstraction to describe what humans always do economically,
no, it's an abstraction that was specifically created to contrast a particular historical mode of production with previous modes of production. Slavery, feudalism, and capitalism all exploit labor, but they do so in historically unique ways. If you think there's no difference between wage labor, serfdom, and slavery, then I don't know what to tell you.

>>2240130
>no, it's an abstraction that was specifically created to contrast a particular historical

I dont think so pal, people in all ages have used capital and labor to create wealth. It isnt at at all a modern thing. You can bet that ancient Incas too had to use tools and labor to create their wealth

>>2240135
>>2240130

The cognition that labor and capital are required to create wealth was a culutural discovery that helped dispell some older myths, like the idea that wealth specifically means land or gold (was a huge meme in Spain) and theres plenty of modern leftists (and some right wingers) that say that everything comes from labor (right wing version involves shirtless farm work).
The world makes more sense when you just get that capital+labor is a general formula that applies in all societies.

>>2239197
The stress on the Middle Class (& Tradcath economic ideology of Distributism for that matter) originates with Aristotle.

There is this Catholic series called Saints vs Scoundrels
https://ondemand-origin.ewtn.com/Home/Series/catalog/video/en/saints-vs-scoundrels
You can watch it here.
It tackles Marxism with Catholic Social Teaching & Distributism in 2 episodes:
part 1
https://ondemand-origin.ewtn.com/Home/Play/en/SVS15025
part 2
https://ondemand-origin.ewtn.com/Home/Play/en/SVS15026
But overall, the idea to distribute property wide and far between I am convinced also comes from Aristotle's Politics and his appeal to the Middle Class.

>another Marx new everything thread

Next time you fuckers gonna find some Marx writing about how to take socialist shit

>>2240135
ok you're just repeating your incorrect assertion and ignoring everything anon is saying. you're trolling. fuck off. "capitalism is the eternal mode of production" is not only a midwit take, it's specifically a form of indoctrination used by the bourgeoisie to make the current mode of production seem like the only one.

>>2240433

Oh im sorry, do you believe that incas, bronze age persians or maoist chinese did not use capital and labor to create wealth? That is capitalism

>>2240449
both it seems

its ridiculous that because some ironically petit bourgeois retards were autistically obsessed with "baristas being bourgeois" we now have to pretend that communism is also a necessity to wealthy workers and some other leftoid unity crap

>>2240551
>we now have to pretend that communism is also a necessity to wealthy workers and some other leftoid unity crap
Not at all, the concept of the labour aristocracy is meant to make exactly that distinction. This shit was all sorted out 100 years ago.

>>2240551
>leftoid unity crap
MLs and Anarchists who insist they have a complete ideological monoply on what is and isn't valid praxis and theory are idealist wreckers. left unity is just pragmatic and practical

>>2239247
What's that thread? Can you link it?

>>2241028
See >>2215712

OP, dont waste your time with these dilittante intellectual unreliables

>>2241169
>dilittante intellectual unreliables
Lmao what is this recent meme-phrase used on here? Can't find anything through DDG "" search.

>>2240145
ok but that doesn't back up anon's assertion that capitalism is an eternal mode of production. if you actually read capital marx elaborates that capital and labor predate capitalism. capitalism is a term used to describe a specific historical epoch. Marx talks about merchant's capital (shipping) and usurer's capital (interest) as predating large scale industrial capital (which was accompanied by proletarianization and the end of feudalism)

>>2240135
Capital isn't synonymous with productive forces. People have used means of production since forever, but they only become capital when brought under specific (capitalist) relations of production. The plough pulled by a serf is not capital.

>>2241329
>ok but that doesn't back up anon's assertion that capitalism is an eternal mode of production.

It is, all production requires labor and capital. I dont know about the future, maybe we will get replicators that replicate themselves, but so far every economy has been based on the combined use of labor and capital

>>2241337
>The plough pulled by a serf is not capital.
That doesnt exist in a vaccuum. Preindustrial societies had capital too and some amount of technology. A ship is capital, farms with improvements are capital, infrastructure like bridges are capital.

>>2241323
not all MLs and anarchists are like that but if you see ts it almost always coming from these two camps

>>2241401
>ignores the rest of the post
< if you actually read capital marx elaborates that capital and labor predate capitalism. capitalism is a term used to describe a specific historical epoch. Marx talks about merchant's capital (shipping) and usurer's capital (interest) as predating large scale industrial capital (which was accompanied by proletarianization and the end of feudalism)
Capitalism is the age of industrial capital. The age of proletarianization. The age of bourgeois class dictatorship. Capital and Labor relations predate capitalism, especially in the form of Usurer's Capital, Merchant's Capital. Labor-Capital relations under feudalism (serfdom) is characterized by a rent seeking landlord and a peasant who does surplus labor for the lord and/or pays a crop rent.

You keep repeating over and over "Capitalism has always existed because labor and capital has always existed" but Capitalism isn't merely the existence of labor-capital relations. It is a term that has always described post-feudal labor-capital relations in industrialized society with bourgeois class dictatorship.

Marx describes "antediluvian" Capital, i.e. Capital before Capitalism in the form of Merchant's Capital and Usurer's Capital.

>>2241508
> if you actually read capital marx elaborates that capit
Marx doesnt own the rights to the term capitalism. He should have called this ism as wageism or some more relevant term, since the use of capital seems to be universal in all societies and ages.

>>2241549
>Marx doesnt own the rights to the term capitalism.
your appeal to Marx's lack of intellectual property over the term Capitalism is a bafflingly stupid response in the context of this conservation. You come to a Marxist board full of Marxists who study Marx and use the term Capitalism as Marx used it, and then complain that we don't use the term Capitalism as only you use it. In fact even most contemporary bourgeois economists usually Capitalism to describe industrial and post-industrial society even if they ignore the class relations. "Capitalism is when Capital and Labor exist and is the only mode of production" is a highly unorthodox definition of that term since it strips the term of its entire historical context: It was used to describe what society was actively becoming as feudal relations broke down.
>He should have called this ism as wageism or some more relevant term, since the use of capital seems to be universal in all societies and ages.
OK so you're just being a pedant. Are you going to complain that the hoops/nets on a "basketball" court isn't an actual basket? Shooting stars aren't stars, but meteoroids burning up in the atmosphere. Digital movies are still called "films" despite not being shot on film reels. A computer mouse has neither fur nor whiskers. A hot dog is not a canine and may actually be served cold. The sun neither rises nor sets, Earth instead rotates, only giving the appearance of a "sunrise" or "sunset." A horse doesn't actually produce one horsepower of energy. This is the essence of your complaint.

Read chapter 31 of Capital if you are too lazy to read the whole book. This is how Marxists use the term Capitalism and if that still bothers you look into Wittgenstein's concept of Language Games:

In his later work, particularly Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that the meaning of a word is its use in the language. Words don’t have fixed, essential meanings; instead, they gain meaning from how they're used in specific social contexts, what he called language games. A language game is any context in which words are used with shared understanding, like giving orders, telling jokes, asking for directions, etc. Semantic pedantry is when someone insists that a word or phrase must adhere strictly to its original, literal, or etymological meaning, disregarding its actual use in a given language game. When someone says “basketball hoop” and another objects, “But it’s not a basket!” they're treating language as if words must always refer to some fixed, essential definition. But in the language game of sports talk, “basket” just means “the scoring apparatus in basketball.” Everyone in that context understands what it refers to. So from Wittgenstein’s view, semantic pedantry ignores the fluid, pragmatic nature of meaning, it treats language as a rigid system, when in reality it’s a social activity.

Does that make sense or are you still going to insist on the ahistorical idea that there is only 1 mode of production?

>>2241601
>You come to a Marxist board full of Marxists who study Marx a
Dont care. I dont care about your stupid religion, if i disturbed your groupthink put some ointment for that butthurt.
I can talk about ideas entirely on their own merit without having to ask the ghost of Marx for his take

>>2241601
>OK so you're just being a pedant.
You are projecting so hard. Capitalis is universally used in all societies so on what grounds would anyone choose to use "capital" to describe one specific society when every single one uses capital?
Why not Laborism? Makes just as much sense.
You people are always gripping about finance, so why not call this "financialism" instead?
CAPITAL IS/WAS USED IN ALL SOCIETIES AND AGES

>>2241632
>Dont care.
You obviously do because you keep replying even though you don't read past the first sentence

>>2241638
>You people are always gripping about finance, so why not call this "financialism" instead?
OK let me just ctrl+F find and replace every single marxist text written since 1867 and phone up every marxist on earth and say "sorry buddy, it's called financialism now because one guy refused to understand that Capitalism refers to the age of industrial capital and bourgeois society which began to emerge with the decline of feudalism"

>>2241549
>wageism
>>2241638
>financialism
You would still complain "ummm finance has always existed, ummm wages have always existed" and refuse to see the expanded definition of the term as it is used in the specific context we are talking about

>>2241644
>You obviously do
I mean i dont care about vowing down to the ghost of Marx before stating a fact
You seem to reply to everything with "well, according to marx…" and get surprised when others dont.

>>2241648
>refused to understand that Capitalism refers
Again, Marx doesnt own the term capitalism, and neither do his fanboys.

>>2241656
>"ummm finance has always existed, ummm wages have always existed"
Well its true tho, labor and capital have always existed. Finance, less so because you can have economies without finance. However the use of capital and labor are UNIVERSAL in all economies in all ages

>>2241673
>waaaaaaaah there's no real basket on a basketball court so why do you call it that waaaaaaaaah
>waaaaaaaaah a computer mouse isn't an actual mouse so why do you call it that waaaaaaah

this is such an obvious waste of time.

>>2241681
Let's recall how this conversation started >>2239840
>Feudalism was capitalism because everything is capitalism
You, or somebody like you, equated feudalism with capitalism, thus rendering both terms synonyms, and divorcing both terms from this historical context.

Everything from there has been downhill, with multiple people (not just me) explaining to you the actual context of how this term is used in Marxist circles, and you refusing to engage with any of that because "I don't care I get to use words how I want" whch again, is just showing up to a basketball court to point out that the net isn't a basket. Everyone playing basketball would rightfully see you as a fool. Since you refuse to talk to Marxists on a (mostly) Marxist board in their own terms, but instead want to play court jester, one anon even supplied you an explanation of why you're being stupid from Wittgenstein, who was definitely not a Marxist:

>In his later work, particularly Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that the meaning of a word is its use in the language. Words don’t have fixed, essential meanings; instead, they gain meaning from how they're used in specific social contexts, what he called language games. A language game is any context in which words are used with shared understanding, like giving orders, telling jokes, asking for directions, etc. Semantic pedantry is when someone insists that a word or phrase must adhere strictly to its original, literal, or etymological meaning, disregarding its actual use in a given language game. When someone says “basketball hoop” and another objects, “But it’s not a basket!” they're treating language as if words must always refer to some fixed, essential definition. But in the language game of sports talk, “basket” just means “the scoring apparatus in basketball.” Everyone in that context understands what it refers to. So from Wittgenstein’s view, semantic pedantry ignores the fluid, pragmatic nature of meaning, it treats language as a rigid system, when in reality it’s a social activity.

Face it. You're being throwing a tantrum and putting zero effort into communicating your thoughts. You are simply saying that we don't have a "Monopoly" on what capitalism means. Maybe so, but neither do you. But when we say "capitalism" we mean something very specific that is neither feudalism, nor slavery, nor socialism. If you don't wish to engage with the very basic concept of there being different historical modes of production because "labor and capital have always existed" (something Marx acknowledges and incorporates into his analysis of Capital) then you don't even really want to have a conversation. You just want to waste people's time with pedantic sophistry. That is trolling. Grow up.

>>2241672
>You seem to reply to everything with "well, according to marx…"
the first instance of anyone using the phrase you put in quotes here is you, in your post. Ctrl+F and you will see. You aren't actually reading the posts and just making shit up. PS: Marxists aren't the only people who uses the term "capitalism" to describe industrial society and bourgeois class dictatorship. It is exceedingly common to distinguish capitalism from socialism, feudalism and slavery.

>>2241673
Surely you’re purposefully being a moron…

>>2241730
it's just a 4chan refugee who's never actually had to talk to Marxists before making shit up as he goes along

>>2241710
> equated feudalism with capitalism, thus rendering both terms synonyms,
Feudalism is just a form of capitalism, not equal as capitalism is a more general term, with feudalism being a form of capitalism. No one says they are the same, same as oranges are not apples, but both are still fruits(Rule 11 - low-quality bait)

>>2241732
You dont know who i talk to nor should it matter, you dont own the term capitalism.
None of the shit you claim makes capitalism some kind of unique ism are absent from literally any other ism. Seems like every single ism is capitalism.
i.e, in any society workers went to work following orders given by others and received some degree of economic compensation, being that food and housing for a slave or wages for a laborer, its pretty much the same regime.

>>2241748
ok now go back through the conversation and replace all the times we used "capitalism" with whatever term you think should be used instead and then argue with the post based on that instead of getting mad at which words we used. Btw here is Marco Rubio using "Capitalism" the same way a Marxist would, proving the point that the "Marxist" definition of Capitalism (a mode of production distinct from Feudalism, Slavery, Socialism, unique to the era of industrialization and bourgeois class dictatorship) is also used even by non-Marxists and anti-Marxists.

>>2241751
>None of the shit you claim makes capitalism some kind of unique ism are absent from literally any other ism

Industrialization, proletarianization of the peasantry, bourgeois class dictatorship, wage labor being the dominant form of labor (as opposed to serfdom or slavery) are all unique to the historical era of capitalism and what makes it distinct from socialism, feudalism, slavery, and neolithic hunter-gatherer society. This has been stated to you several times already, you just keep ignoring it.

>>2241710
>we mean something very specific that is neither feudalism, nor slavery, nor socialism
You dont know what you are talking about. The social regime you call "capitalism" has existed since the beggining of economic activity in prehistoric times.
Show me a society where this isnt the case. Show me a society where economic life isnt just workers working and getting economic compensation, with the remaining wealth pocketed by an elite and the government in some measure

>>2241757
>Industrialization
Oh oh, so capitalism is just steam engines?

>>2241760
As a consequence of an unfolding historical process involving many other things.

>>2241757
>proletarianization of the peasantry,
just workers working
>>2241757
> bourgeois class dictatorship
Silly name for elites, which have always existed
>>2241757

>>2241757
> bourgeois class dictatorship
>wage labor being the dominant form of labor
Another silly rebranding with no meaning. A worker works and either gets food and housing or gets money to buy them. Theres fundamentally no difference.

>>2241763
>Another silly rebranding with no meaning.
No they have specific meanings you just refuse to engage with them because "ha i don't care about your silly religion"

again you are complaining that the computer mouse isn't a real rodent. it is childish

>>2241759
>. Show me a society where economic life isnt just workers working and getting economic compensation, with the remaining wealth pocketed by an elite and the government in some measure
not that you give two flying fucks but Marx calls this "class society" and "exploitation" and elaborates on how the different forms of class society (slavery, feudalism, capitalism) exploit labor in unique ways based on the historical material conditions of their respective eras.

>>2241771
>This is totally not a slave because theres an electric motor nearby
wow what a gotcha. time to abandon Marxism even thought it frequently refers to wage labor under capitalism as "wage slavery"

>>2241770
>again you are complaining that the computer mouse isn't a real rodent. it is childish
No, im complaing that what you call "capitalism" is fundamentally no different than anything else that has already existed. Its not just the name.
You for instance talk about the difference between serfdom and wage labor or slavery. Theres no real difference

>>2241772
>how the different forms of class society (slavery, feudalism, capitalism) exploit labor in unique ways based

I see, one uses a leash and another a cattle prod. Completely different isms

>>2241774
> refers to wage labor under capitalism as "wage slavery"
Oh, im sorry, i thought wage labor was FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT?

my understanding is that generally marx/engels model was that bourgeois & proletarian are just the necessary conditions for the mode of production, and are therefore more "real" than what is between/outside of them insofar as the reproduction of capital only strictly REQUIRES people selling labor-power and people managing labor. that doesnt mean that no other classes, castes, or otherwise meaningful social formations exist as part of capital's actual instantiation in history, only that theyre fundamentally precarious compared to proletariat and bourgeoisie as classes. hence consistent tendencies towards proletarianization and under certain circumstances class mobility.

it seems entirely pedantic and besides straightforwardly wrong to insist that theres only 2 classes, but that said OP >>2239197 i dont think that pulling out random gotcha marx quotes is ever especially helpful and you could have said a little more besides

>>2241781
it is fundamentally different from the particular type of slavery that dominated when slavery was the primary form of surplus labor in class society. This entire conversation is you saying over and over that all modes of production are capitalism when no, all modes of production (so far) are class society, and capitalism is the latest form of class society.

You think Marxists don't have a general term for class society, but we do. That term is class society. When you say "everything is just capitalism" we say "no, everything so far is class society, and there are different forms of class society in different historical eras, based on the level of technological development, where the work takes place, how the workers are exploited, and whether the ruling class is, say, a hereditary landed nobility (feudalism), or an industrial bourgeoisie (capitalism), or an empire of late antiquity (slavery).

>>2241789
>it is fundamentally different from the particular type of slavery that dominated when slavery
>Claims wage labor is different from slavery when it suits him
>Still calls wage labor wage slavery, when it suits him
which one is it?

>>2241789
>You think Marxists don't have a general term for class society, but we do. That term is class society.

I bet you have a term for water too, which is is water.

>>2241792
>The semi-proletariat.
One more classification and you will nail the perfect model to describe the world

>>2241792
>because they don't actually produce any value
>Cashiers dont produce any value
Source?

>>2241791
notice how you have now pivoted from "all types of class society are just capitalism" to "there is no qualitative difference between wage labor (which is sometimes called wage slavery) and literal slavery as a mode of production in late antiquity.

all you have is language policing. this is a very tiresome conversation and we have been far too polite and patient with you.

>>2239840
>>2240107
>>2240124
>>2240135
>>2241401
>>2241549
>>2241632
>>2241638
>>2241672
>>2241681
>>2241748
>>2241760
round and round we go

>>2241792
im referring to the marxist model of production and class, where the transportation and preperation of commodities either adds surplus value or is the final point in the production process that allows for the realization of value. adding surplus value is obviously the role of proletarians. the latter part may be less clear. where the preparation of a commodity is a prerequisite for all of the preceding surplus value inputs to be worth anything, i.e. the cashier is the final stop in the chain of production, the fact that its purchase is (e.g. in the case of a grocery store) circumstantially dependent on the cashier makes them proletarian if the wage they are paid for their labor-power in cashiering is their only way of reproducing their labor i.e. living. they are adding value because the employers have decided they make more from the extraction of the employees surplus value than they lose in paying a wage, i.e. theyve determined its worth paying the wage because there is enough value added by the employees labor in organizing distribution and payment to not only offset the cost of the wage but to make more than they could if they used another non-human system that could not produce surplus value (i.e. constant capital). whether or not the employer is wrong about this (e.g. they may be losing money on cashier wages when they could instead streamline the checkout lanes) and whether or not cashiers are a necessity at all (e.g. they can circumstantially be replaced by self-checkout etc) is as irrelevant as the fact that 1000 miners are employed when 300 + machinery would be just as possible – their class position comes from their role in the process of production and exchange as it actually exists, not what would be the most productive ideal arrangement of production and exchange. in a grocery store (e.g.) that is arranged in such a way that it hires cashiers, so long as the cashier in question has no other means of reproducing their labor other than selling their labor-power, they are objectively performing productive labor and are therefore proletarian.

Capital Vol. 2 Chapter 1:

>…what the transportation industry sells is change of location. The useful effect is inseparably connected with the process of transportation, i.e., the productive process of the transport industry. Men and goods travel together with the means of transportation, and their traveling, this locomotion, constitutes the process of production effected by these means. The useful effect can be consumed only during this process of production. It does not exist as a utility different from this process, a use-thing which does not function as an article of commerce, does not circulate as a commodity, until after it has been produced. But the exchange-value of this useful effect is determined, like that of any other commodity, by the value of the elements of production (labour-power and means of production) consumed in it plus the surplus-value created by the surplus-labour of the labourers employed in transportation. This useful effect also entertains the very same relations to consumption that other commodities do. If it is consumed individually its value disappears during its consumption; if it is consumed productively so as to constitute by itself a stage in the production of the commodities being transported, its value is transferred as an additional value to the commodity itself.

note especially:

>The useful effect can be consumed only during this process of production…This useful effect also entertains the very same relations to consumption that other commodities do. If it is consumed individually its value disappears during its consumption; if it is consumed productively so as to constitute by itself a stage in the production of the commodities being transported, its value is transferred as an additional value to the commodity itself.

please note that i am not quoting scripture here and saying you are automatically wrong. i am quoting and summarizing marx's understanding of capital because i agree with it and find it much more convincing than alternatives. if you find mao's explanation that you quoted more convincing, please explain why, and what you find lacking in marx's explanation that makes mao's more compelling

>>2241927
screencapped myself and posted to the booru bc im sick of reiterating this every time muh service industry comes up

>>2242015
Smart choice, I've often done the same

>>2241783
walmart cashiers are not proletarians. Mao concluded they are semi-proletarians because they don't actually produce any value
<The semi-proletariat. What is here called the semi-proletariat consists of five categories: (1) the overwhelming majority of the semi-owner peasants, [10] (2) the poor peasants, (3) the small handicraftsmen, (4) the shop assistants [11] and (5) the pedlars.
<The shop assistants are employees of shops and stores, supporting their families on meagre pay and getting an increase perhaps only once in several years while prices rise every year. If by chance you get into intimate conversation with them, they invariably pour out their endless grievances. Roughly the same in status as the poor peasants and the small handicraftsmen, they are highly receptive to revolutionary propaganda.
>>2241804
Mao https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm
>>2241927
In this same chapter Marx concludes that merchant wage-workers produce no value.
<The metamorphoses C — M and M — C are transactions between buyers and sellers; they require time to conclude bargains, the more so as the struggle goes on in which each seeks to get the best of the other, and it is businessmen who face one another here; and “when Greek meets Greek then comes the tug of war.” [A paraphrase of words from the 17th century tragedy The Rival Queens, or the Death of Alexander the Great by Nathaniel Lee. — Ed.] To effect a change in the state of being costs of time and labour-power, not for the purpose of creating value, however, but in order to accomplish the conversion of value from one form into another. The mutual attempt to appropriate an extra slice of this value on this occasion changes nothing. This labour, increased by the evil designs on either side, creates no value, any more than the work performed in a judicial proceeding increases the value of the subject matter of the suit. Matters stand with this labour — which is a necessary element in the capitalist process of production as a whole, including circulation or included by it — as they stand, say, with the work of combustion of some substance used for the generation of heat. This work of combustion does not generate any heat, although it is a necessary element in the process of combustion. In order, e.g., to consume coal as fuel, I must combine it with oxygen, and for this purpose must transform it from the solid into the gaseous state (for in the carbonic acid gas, the result of the combustion, coal is in the gaseous state); consequently, I must bring about a physical change in the form of its existence or in its state of being. The separation of carbon molecules, which are united into a solid mass, and the splitting up of these molecules into their separate atoms must precede the new combination, and this requires a certain expenditure of energy which thus is not transformed into heat but taken from it. Therefore, if the owners of the commodities are not capitalists but independent direct producers, the time employed in buying and selling is a diminution of their labour-time, and for this reason such transactions used to be deferred (in ancient and medieval times) to holidays.
<In order to simplify the matter (since we shall not discuss the merchant as a capitalist and merchant’s capital until later) we shall assume that this buying and selling agent is a man who sells his labour. He expends his labour-power and labour-time in the operations C — M and M — C. And he makes his living that way, just as another does by spinning or making pills. He performs a necessary function, because the process of reproduction itself includes unproductive functions. He works as well as the next man, but intrinsically his labour creates neither value nor product. He belongs himself to the faux frais of production. His usefulness does not consist in transforming an unproductive function into a productive one, nor unproductive into productive labour. It would be a miracle if such transformation could be accomplished by the mere transfer of a function. His usefulness consists rather in the fact that a smaller part of society’s labour-power and labour-time is tied up in this unproductive function. More. We shall assume that he is a mere wage-labourer, even one of the better paid, for all the difference it makes. Whatever his pay, as a wage-labourer he works part of his time for nothing. He may receive daily the value of the product of eight working-hours, yet functions ten. But the two hours of surplus-labour he performs do not produce value anymore than his eight hours of necessary labour, although by means of the latter a part of the social product is transferred to him. In the first place, looking at it from the standpoint of society, labour-power is used up now as before for ten hours in a mere function of circulation. It cannot be used for anything else, not for productive labour. In the second place however society does not pay for those two hours of surplus-labour, although they are spent by the individual who performs this labour. Society does not appropriate any extra product or value thereby. But the costs of circulation, which he represents, are reduced by one-fifth, from ten hours to eight. Society does not pay any equivalent for one-fifth of this active time of circulation, of which he is the agent. But if this man is employed by a capitalist, then the non-payment of these two hours reduces the cost of circulation of his capital, which constitutes a deduction from his income. For the capitalist this is a positive gain, because the negative limit for the self-expansion of his capital-value is thereby reduced. So long as small independent producers of commodities spend a part of their own time in buying and selling, this represents nothing but time spent during the intervals between their productive function or diminution of their time of production.

>>2241927
i didnt clarify my initial distinction well enough unfortunately. the commodity the cashier is adding value to isnt the product theyre ringing up, its the act of ringing up the product/misc. customer service, the service IS the commodity. there is valued added into the process of production, not to the discrete commodity. part of what is being paid for when you buy something at a grocery store instead of e.g. wholesaling is the "service" of the aisles being stocked & arranged, the food etc being stored properly, and the cashier ringing you up and bagging/answering questions/putting up with your bullshit etc. the labor-power of the cashier is expended immediately at a service-commodity that is one part of the overall function of the grocery store as an outlet for production, the same way that energy keeping the lights on and soap to clean the floor are inputs into an industry that makes profit off of being the "last stop" of many commodities at the end of their production chains. grocery stores are a "finishing" industry in the sense of oil refinement or steel galvanization – in this case the more perfect analogy is the gas station or the hardware store, but since that raises the same questions of "service industry" its easier to think in terms of a gas station attendant being farthest down the line in a production line of finishing processes that include oil refineries somewhere towards the middle.

>>2242053
wow, thank you. been years since i read vol.2 but should really reread it because i've been working with the above presumptions for a while now. i inferred too much about the general principle of transportation being generally applicable to every stage in the realization of value. reading this it does make sense, however, as far as a distinction made between incidentally more or less profitable exchange practices (better or worse book-keeping, driving over or under the speed limit in delivery, clean floors or dirty floors attracting more or less customers, etc) are basically questions of how efficiently the commodity is purchased and consumed, which is a crucial part of the process but does not alter the value of the commodity itself.

not the same chapter btw for anyone following, my post is Vol.2, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 4. This is in reference to Vol.2, Part 1, Chapter 6, Section 1.a.

Chapter 1: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch01.htm#1

Chapter 6:


now let me ask, because i'm still confused by this and i was so certain about my own explanation because it seems much more intuitive to me. as a commodity with a dual nature, is its exchange-value not as much a part of its use-value as its 'intended' use in consumption? as with money in which the use-value of money is in being a universal medium of exchange, though the commodity's use-value in exchange is limited to those who would either use it OR profit off its further refinement and sale? if circulation is an essential part of the process as marx is clear about here and as is intuitive, doesn't the unavailability or inability to exchange the commodity effect its value? it seems counterintuitive to me that value does not need to be maintained, and that the process of circulation is not essentially a reproduction of value, a maintenance of it, in the same way that repairing a loom or a tractor is reproduction of value. is that not productive labor and ultimately comparable to production of the loom and the tractor? isn't the entire issue with constant capital that leads to the falling rate of profit that constant capital cannot reproduce itself and can only be exhausted, requiring value inputs from productive labor? if that's the case, why is a loaf of bread getting moldy in a grocery store and discouraging sales due to the owner cheaping out on staff fundamentally different from a machine breaking down and discouraging sales due to the owner cheaping out on engineers?

i am genuinely asking from anyone who is familiar with the texts, because i am humbled by how wrong i was in my explanation.

but a further point: does this really effect the status of the worker in question as proletarian? the question of whether or not proletarian was only those doing productive working i.e. adding value to a commodity was previously uninteresting for me because i had a wrong idea of what value-added encompassed, or at least one in contradiction with marx who i thought i was recieving the idea from. and i do now clearly see mao's reason for modifying the category of proletarian with semi-proletarian to account for wage-workers who work in unproductive industries. but let me concede the question of how constrained productive labor is and just take for granted what marx says above: is semi-proletarian a necessary distinction? i understand the relevance of employment in productive industries vs unproductive industries so far as it relates to leveraging a role in production into political power, but that seems to be a question of strategy. and anyway, if that were used as the standard for proletarianization, wouldn't that create a gradient between productive industries in which the most essential are "more proletarian" and the less essential "less proletarian"? assuming that cashier work is definitively unproductive, and their role in circulation of a commodity doesn't modify the value of the commodity, is that a sufficient condition to preclude their being proletarian despite the fact that (let's assume) they are unable to reproduce their labor-power without working for a wage, and they do work for a wage as a part of the web of commodities realizing their value? even if that's unproductive strictly speaking, in the actual circulation of commodities they were for a wage because they need to, and the specific use of their labor-power is still "a positive gain" for the capitalist.

to illustrate my question about qualifying for proletarian, imagine there is a finishing industry for metals that is suddenly discovered to be entirely unnecessary. there's galvanization, tin-plating, etc, etc., and then there's Finish+, which had been considered an essential process that followed up all other means of finishing steel for 100 years. a team of chemists and engineers prove conclusively that this was always a completely unnecessary process that has absolutely no effect, positive or negative, on the quality of the steel – the entirety of the massive Finish+ industry is and has always been just a completely unnecessary waste of time and material, maybe based on a scam, maybe a mistake, doesn't matter. the team of scientists sell this discovery and their secrecy to the Finishing+ branch of the biggest steel producers and everyone keeps quiet about it forever to keep their jobs and investments safe. were the workers doing Finishing+ never proletarians in the first place because they were never actually adding value to the steel? they are now and always have been semi-proletarians rather than proletarians? the people who work in transporting the steel to the Finish+ workshops, are they not proletarian because transporting steel there is no longer inseparably connected with the useful effect that gives the steel its value?

i realize this might sound like an 'if a tree falls in a forest' bullshit thought experiment, but i really do not think it is, there are some pretty strange implications if every instance of "time spent during the intervals between their productive function or diminution of their time of production" disqualifies the workers in that specialized branch of industry from being proletarian.

>>2242184
>>2242053
chapter 6: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch06.htm

bump cause i'd like to keep discussing if possible

>>2239197
I don't think people understand that even a millionaire already has the wealth that an average British worker would be expected to earn if they worked for 50 years straight, and that would spread out over a lifetime. Even earning £100,000 a year puts you firmly in the 0.1% in Britain, and yet these people are treated like fucking poor babies we have to coddle while those same rich people go on TV and rant about how children are greedy for getting free school meals.

>>2239197
this AI image is so ugly. it's meant to be like "haha look marx and engels are laughing at you, stupid lib" but it's like, they're pointing in two different directions, Engels has two thumbs on his left hand, and is pointing with his thumb on his right hand. They both look fucked up in their faces. Why are they at some swanky ball with bourgeois piglets instead of hanging out in one of their homes? Compare it to this real painting, which is slick and goes hard.

>>2244713
Really like this flavor of terminally online dipshit who gets irrationally mad at AI slop.

Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation. Otherwise, our unity will be purely fictitious, it will conceal the prevailing confusion and binder its radical elimination. It is understandable, therefore, that we do not intend to make our publication a mere storehouse of various views. On the contrary, we shall conduct it in the spirit of a strictly defined tendency. This tendency can be expressed by the word Marxism, and there is hardly need to add that we stand for the consistent development of the ideas of Marx and Engels and emphatically reject the equivocating, vague, and opportunist “corrections” for which Eduard Bernstein, P. Struve, and many others have set the fashion. But although we shall discuss all questions from our own definite point of view, we shall give space in our columns to polemics between comrades. Open polemics, conducted in full view of all Russian Social-Democrats and class-conscious workers, are necessary and desirable in order to clarify the depth of existing differences, in order to afford discussion of disputed questions from all angles, in order to combat the extremes into which representatives, not only of various views, but even of various localities, or various “specialities” of the revolutionary movement, inevitably fall. Indeed, as noted above, we regard one of the drawbacks of the present-day movement to be the absence of open polemics between avowedly differing views, the effort to conceal differences on fundamental questions.

The middle classes decry open polemic against them and preach hollow solidarity to shield their own interests and promote their own anti-Communist theories that obscure class distinctions essential to scientific socialism.

>>2244759
I enjoy AI slop when it's at least OK. Otherwise I criticize it. You strike me as someone who reads text in the tone of whatever bad mood you're in and then you get mad at the tone you projected.

>>2244837
is this real?

>>2244838
nah it's AI slop

bump in case anons still around im the same h&s flag from before

>>2239197
The petty-bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy are working class but not proletarian.

>>2239840
ancaps and bookphobic leftoids : i agree!

>>2263880
Labor aristos are proletarian, petit bourgeoisie are by definition not proletarian, they're bourgeois.

>>2264094
The working class is anyone who must work to earn a living. Do you seriously think a prostitute is a capitalist? A prostitute is not a prole but a prostitute is typically still working class. The same goes with unemployed people. Also housewives in some places can be working class. Also poor peasants are working class. Working class != Proletarian Vanguard.

>>2263880
>>2264094
Labor aristocracy is used interchangeably with petit-bourgeois or middle-class, though it's used by idiots who are allergic to saying the latter for some reason.

>A prostitute is not a prole but a prostitute is typically still working class.
Sure, but under a communist context working class means proletarian strictly.

>Working class != Proletarian Vanguard.
The vanguard is the most advanced section of the proletariat.

>The same goes with unemployed people.
…How the FUCK is being unemployed working class?

>>2264639
>The vanguard is the most advanced section of the proletariat.

and yet we have had historical situations where the leader of the vanguard party was not proletarian (Mao, Lenin, Castro)

>>2264696
rofl ok except neither mao nor castro had communist programs during and after the revolution

>>2264697
>Mao and Castro weren't Communist! Only Lenin was!
OK he was still a lawyer and middle peasant and professional revolutionary who never did productive wage labor, which was my point.
>Communist programs
Lenin did "war communism" 1918-1921 which was more of a civil-wartime state of emergency measure than communism, then backed off of that after the civil war, then did the NEP which was semi-restoration of capitalism on a temporary basis, and then died of his strokes before the NEP was rolled back under Stalin. I don't think Lenin really had the chance to do "Communist programs". He died too early.

Anyways, it's not a state of affairs to be established. You know that. I know that. Everyobody knows that.