/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

True

I don't entirely disagree, but if you openly say "fuck small business and fuck homeowners", you're just going to make these people resent you and gain a lumpen class-consciousness. You're supposed to make them angry that porky has defeated them, not angry at you.

>>2323529
Of course, it's a libertarian communist saying this shit. Extremely petty-bourgeois tendency.

>>2323605
Homes are means of production, not fruits of labor. 🙄

>>2323559
Fair enough; it's more accurate to say that your views are retarded, and you should correct them.

>>2323578
All of my jobs have been manual labor for the petite bourgeois. I'm well aware that, as a class, they're horrible people.

>>2323636
Wow great argument.

>>2323626
This is unironically more economically productive, small businesses are very inefficient compared to big businesses, because simply the big businesses have the ability to invest a portion of their capital to avaliable & latest production equipment while small businesses will still try operating with legacy stuff

In an unregulated market, the big business will always win with being able to profit less while producing more while the big business has to profit less from the same amount of output.

Down with the petty bourgeouis, long live the bourgeouis!

>>2323626
I mean it's no different than the counter-revolution of 1776. Little porky revolted against big porky and fucked over the working class.
>>2323631
Homes are the means of production for domestic and reproductive labor. We need a gay lifestyle of bathhouses, laundromats, cheap diners and so on.

>>2323645
The ML to ancap pipeline is real

>>2323660
I mean Nick Land does have a fondness for the PRC anyhow. Accelerationism is a logical conclusion of these kinds of Bukharinist/Dengist ideas.

>>2323660
MLs want to use the state to take the monopolies from the bourgeoisie.That's the opposite of Ancap.
Not sure why you insist we need millions of inefficient small businesses aka capitalism.

>>2323529
>"fuck small business and fuck homeowners", you're just going to make these people resent you and gain a lumpen class-consciousness.
you mean a petit bourgeois class consciousness and in case you didnt notice thats what they already have which is the fucking problem

>>2323868
Dark enlightenment wasnt written by land, though

>>2323884
Nah it wasnt written by land. Moldbug wrote that shit

>>2323868
>state capitalism.
Capitalism needs the bourgeoisie to exist. State capitalism is when the bourgeoisie control the state ran economy.
On the other hand, if workers control the state and that state controls the economy then that isn't state capitalism it's socialism (socialism being the stage between capitalism and communism).

>>2323910
It can in the lower stages. But it can't in communism.

>>2323868
>thats not true at all. a bigger business means bigger waste, since they can afford it.

Yes. Bigger businesses produce bigger wastes, but that does not in any way interfere with the stature of their productivity compared to the small businesses ( output per given time )

>in an unregulated market, big business wouldnt have subsidies to keep themselves afloat. its weird seeing "marxists" fail to recognise the decline of profit for larger amounts of capital employed.

Those subsidies as a keyneysian mediation actually serves as an anti-crisis mechanism, pumping artifical profit rates when the capital enters into periods of low profitting, that otherwise may arrest production as whole to keep itself afloat.
Albeit it might only slow down the inevitable, accounting the increase of cost of living worldwide while production grows more efficient.
But idk if you think that small businesses are more crisis-proof than the big businesses, I would expect it to be vice versa.

>>2323942
What the difference between a slave commodity or feudal commodity? Modes of production, organization of labor power, etc.

Anyway commodity production is supposed to be temporary under socialism as it transitions to communism. Or as Marx puts it in Critique of the Gotha Programme :
<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

Socialism is still marked by capitalism. To expect a new society and communism to magically be created out of nothing while still fighting capitalists is ridiculous idealism.

>>2324041
>so you cant answer the question?
I did answer your question.You just didn't like the answer because your question was about the modes of production but you meant something else.
>what does socialist commodity production and profit look like?
Here's a nice little essay about it:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch03.htm
TLDR It looks like if you got rid of the local bourgeoisie but still had to deal with other countries and the leftover social structures that were holding you back from achieving a higher phase communism.

Sorry Ultra, but your perfectly clean, perfectly formed communism will not just happen. You will have to deal with ambiguities as we change modes of production.

>>2324084
He will post dialogue with stalin watch

>>2323984
>right, so they are less efficient

Small business : 10 output in x time per person with 30% waste → 7 produced

Big business : 100 output in x time per person with 40% waste → 60 produced

Also, the waste rate % doesn't need to be more with the small business, 10% of 100 is still more than 20% of 10. And i think small businesses prob waste more in some instances since they mostly chase for local customers while big businesses being present in multiple markets, having better networks for feedbacks etc.

>the fall in profit should cause downsizing, which is the natural market activity. it doesnt destroy companies, it just reallocates resources to more efficient ends.

All the less productive actors which are 'downsized' will be swept away with more productive actors who can pump out more into the markets with more goods who can maintain a steady rate of (general)-profit while the others are hurted more by it.
There are plenty of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws which try to prevent such stuff as I know ( with either actually forcing different companies to establish a co-monopoly or dividing them )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
Just like how Bell industries were a monopoly in tech(mainly telephone) industry before they were divided, because when the capital is big enough, it is able to invest in higher amounts for its self growth, which potential & capital small businesses lack.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Edison_patents
No small business ever could compete Edison Company in patents back then..
And no small company would electrify the country in such scales, because less capital = less efficiency for most of the cases

As for downsizing ( which prob wouldn't happen when monopoly is more desirable ) and reallocation of resources to different ends, a big business in that field is more likely to dominate that end as well

Most small businesses are just doing unnecessary stuff with low productivity ( like restaurants, a communal kitchen with streamlined cooking equipment serving more people consumes less electricity and labor per plate ), they only profit because big businesses try keeping their prices as high as possible, since competition would ordinarily hurt both sides ( lowering the profit rate of both )

Moved to >>>/siberia/678143.