[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Not reporting is bourgeois


File: 1749899836266.png (60.45 KB, 1051x610, no difference.png)

 

And no, labelling the same structure with different words doesnt make it different.
I can see that some independent farmer, artisan, industrial cooperative or family company (operated by an actual family) escapes this structure. In all the common isms you have at least two classes of people, one exploits, one is being exploited.
technological changes do not change this structure. The use or not of money does not change this structure. The possibility of individual persons changing their social position (i.e slaves gaining freedom or rich people losing their money) doesnt change the structure.

>>2322576
>muh elites
<watch/read Cockshott

>>2322586
>muh elites
What about them?

>>2322576
well, the difference is exactly in 'production' and how that was organized. the only thing you can say about any society is that it had some way of producing and reproducing itself. you can't then derive all your relations from just this, because it doesn't tell you anything particular about production.
(more generally) you're using categories of capitalist production as abstract, always existing logical categories in your analysis
+ there's the problem with 'elites' because it doesn't really give any meaningful description of the relation to the means of production or why it is the dominant class.
the problem with your diagram is that it is ahistoric.
read the first chapter of the german ideology. read marx's letter to annenekov. read the poverty of philosophy.

>>2322591

>How is production organized

Isnt it just organized by some group giving orders to the other group?

>>2322597
you'd think so, but then you have to ask yourself - okay, why are these groups ordering these groups to do thing X and not thing Y? why are things organized in the way that they are? nothing here can be assumed to have always been existing organized in this form. and that's when you get to marx's central point. any society needs so much and then a bit more to reproduce and produce itself. but how this surplus product is created determines the whole logic of society. so in antique times, generally, surplus product came from slave work, and the more slaves you had, the richer you were; in feudal society, surplus product was made by peasants, so who owned more land, he was richer; in capitalist production, who can command more labor-power, has more riches. but what commands labor-power?
>>2322576
>The use or not of money does not change this structure.
it is exactly money. because capitalists own money, and proles work for money, money and wage work etc makes capitalism different from other ways of production.


>>2322603
> why are these groups ordering these groups
I dont know, i just know they do. I have a job and in my job i just do what my boss says. Does it matter to me why?
>>2322603

>why are things organized in the way that they are?

I dont know, but i have noticed that the organizations seems to be the same pretty much always
>>2322603
>so in antique times, generally, surplus product came from slave work, and the more slaves you had, the richer you were; in feudal society, surplus product was made by peasants, so who owned more land, he was richer; in capitalist production, who can command more labor-power,
This is entirely compatible with my diagram. You have elites bossing over non elites, and some of the production is fed to the non-elites to sustain and reproduce them, the rest goes to the elites.

>>2322607
you're just repeating your argument without sustenance. if you do not understand historical materialism, that's okay.
<read the first chapter of the german ideology. read marx's letter to annenekov. read the poverty of philosophy.
'bosses' haven't always existed. 'jobs' haven't always existend. 'organizations' are not pretty much the same anyways, and 'elites' bossing over 'non-elites' is a phrase empty of any kind of history. read. read. read.

>>2322603
>money and wage work etc makes capitalism different from other ways of production.
How?
If money did not exist, would work not exist?
If money did not exist, would elite peoples not boss over non-elites?
If money did not exist, would production not exist?
If i was an alien with no concept of money and i looked at human societies at any time in history, i would just see a lot of people working, a small group of people not working and receiving a ton of goods and services from the working people, and the non-working people giving commands to the working people. Seems like an universal structure to me
>>2322608
>'jobs' haven't always existend
A person doing the bidding and following the orders of another person is essentially doing a job, i.e "has a job".
>bosses have not always existed
Not among hunter-gatherers, independent artisants and other such peoples. But within the four "systems" i mentioned (capitalis, communism, feudalism and slavety) there are bosses and people being bossed.

>>2322576
>elites
Stopped reading

>>2322613
Got a problem with the labelling?

>>2322607
>This is entirely compatible with my diagram.
imagine if I just made a circle that said "people" and when confronted with any theory about society I just said "well, my graphic that just says 'people' already includes all of that so your theory is either incorrect or just a subset of what I said"

what your graph describes is the concept of surplus value: a person only needs X amount of things to live, but through their work they can produce Y (where Y > X); then there is surplus value (P) defined as Y - X = P; and now you have that this person, because P exists, can be exploited, even by themselves. all societies since the neolithic have had surplus value, the difference is in how it is produced and then distributed within society

I don't think you understand what communism means. the socialist countries like the ussr do not fit into your graphic because the "elite" (the governing bureaucrats) didn't take surplus value from the workers, they had a salary that in some cases could be higher than that of the regular worker but they were still, at most, 2 or 3 times richer than the regular person

under capitalism you have people whose net worth is millions of times more than the average. this is because their income (the share of surplus value they appropriate) comes from their ownership of capital, to put it simply, let T be the units of time, I the interest for that unit of time and C the amount of capital, their wealth could be define as f(T) = C * I^T which is an exponential function. meanwhile the workers that simply exchange their labor for a wage (W) will have something like g(T) = W*T which is linear and becomes increasingly smaller compared to the other function as T increases

I'm reporting your post for being low quality bait btw

>>2322576
>does not change this structure
Ok Sperglord
>>2322608
> if you do not understand historical materialism, that's okay.
Its really not!

>>2322608
what you said was right… but
>[…] historical materialism […]

I love metaphysics of history I love metaphysics of history I love metaphysics of history I love metaphysics of history I love metaphysics of history I love metaphysics of history

recommended reading:
https://ruthlesscriticism.com/Marxism.htm

https://ruthlesscriticism.com/ML.htm


Unique IPs: 8

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]