[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ 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: 1753150861514-0.png (1.33 MB, 1024x533, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1753150861514-1.png (177.89 KB, 355x250, ClipboardImage.png)

 

As time goes on and the tasks of the industry undergo automatization, most jobs are left to the part-time workers. Hasn't anyone else noticed this trend? We call them petite-bourgeoisie and yes variably but mostly tend to be since the nature of their work is not collectivist and is akin to the statuses of small business owners (individual entrepreneurs), shopkeepers (of small businesses), small-scale merchants (without a proper shop), semi-autonomous peasants (now just semi-autonomous poor entrepreneurs), and artisans. I feel that class relations have changed and nobody has bothered to do a concise analysis of it, instead clinging to the same labels, looking back and trying to reapply or justify the changed situation with outdated concepts. For example the "peasantry" Marx described is not the same as the poor jobless homeless, they were literally farmers with limited land-ownership and yet I see people calling hobos and the general poor as peasants. I am lead to believe the term proletariat barely applies anymore, the industrial proletariat is being scaled down and once society no longer relies on its labor then nothing makes it a revolutionary subject since it cannot bring about change through strikes or anything - it will just disappear once its no longer needed anywhere. My thesis is that the majority of the current workers are in the sphere of services and that the revolutionary subject may be IT workers, programmers, generally technicians and scientists which can understand the machinery and affect it. Machinery has already enveloped most of society, so any change that comes upon it will affect it and whoever can affect it can take control of the social order.
Most workers don't work a single job anymore, they do part-time jobs here and there to live by. In the historical situation for which Marx was writing, workers generally lived and died the same profession they took up.

And yes we've had this thread before, though there is a different response each time so I'm trying it against to see what comes out as a response. I present it in a different way and with a different flag that may or may not even be related.
My current thesis is that the movement of the declassed (as Bukharin labeled it) might have the upper hand with the growth of capitalism, the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production do lead to a sort of decomposition, but generally don't appear to be able to lead to collapse on their own unless it brings about omnicide.
The industrial proletariat can only exist as long as the industry needs manual intervention, when manual intervention is deduced to management rather than physical labor it is only those professions which can control the machinery and know how it functions that are able to intervene in production at all. There are less and less factory workers since their manual labor to operate the machinery is not needed - most just move onto working in logistic hubs or construction, but what happens when they're no longer needed there either?


Also FYI, this is just speculative thought experiment, I may or may not believe it, just putting it out there to see what others think.

Tldr but yes. They aren't.

>>2398551
This is not really an original idea either, I read about it in two books I would rather not share here.

Also I sort of contradict my one of my points, that we use outdated words to describe new phenomena and developments at the beginning.

>are people to whom communism is not an utmost necessity le revolutionary
a thread died for this

>>2398556
Why does it have to be vice-versa or for the sake of the class when one of the strives is the abolition of class?

Incels are and always will be the revolutionary subject. All politics is about sex, specifically sex with blond white women. Always was.

>>2398559
The entire point of owning the means of production was to lead it through the movement and what program can be upheld, even the bourgeoisie can do it if they go against the class interest to instead cater towards it by abandoning their position, its simply that they don't have much motif to besides some gaining a sense of intellectualism, self-awareness of empathy. It's why some Russian knyaz went onto become declassed anarchists and why Engels despite having a bourgeoisie family background and being perfectly well off with going into business instead catered towards the working class entirely, it was his interest in philosophy initially as was Marx's seen in the young Hegelians that drove them into analysis, creating new methods and realizing that for their time society wholly depended on the industrial workers, the historical period being shortly after the industrial revolution had begun, yet nations had not fully industrialized at that point so there was even more potential to be awaited.

>>2398572
Shitpost, but its not sex or lack thereof that can lead to societal change. There is however an important character to the family structure that affects it, which Engels also did a profound analysis and critique of as you may know https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

>>2398574
>instead cater towards it
*Referring to either to a program that goes against the class interests of the bourgeoisie or the communist movement in itself.

>>2398574
>was his interest in philosophy initially
Which was driven by a desire to knowledge, it was later that Marx discovered how most of philosophy is a crock of shit and went too abandon the young hegelians. It was by then that he had attained a method of analysis, of critique and a vision.

I cannot wait until the internet is nuked and Bourgeoisie have fallen from their hubris. It’s all so tiresome.

>>2398551
Part-time and precarious labor is a growing segment of the global workforce, whereas industrial work such as manufacturing jobs are being quickly replaced by automation.

>>2398587
And again as Engels points out, the proletariat has its origins in the industrial revolution, the industrial revolution in itself was set by feudalism being replaced by capitalism, so that shows how one mode of production can change into another without being necessarily good for humanity.
He also writes:
>This is how it has come about that in civilized countries at the present time nearly all kinds of labor are performed in factories – and, in nearly all branches of work, handicrafts and manufacture have been superseded.
This shows types of work can be superseded by changes in the mode of production, would it be that far fetched to speculate that the proletariat can also be superseded as well without the communist movement brining about a revolution - but instead capital growth changing the needed type of work in order to uphold the interests of the class that benefit from the capitalist mode of production - the bourgeoisie. If the bourgeoisie no longer needs industrial workers to remain both in control of the societal order and it inherently relies on exploitation, then all I can guess is that the only the leftover classes beneath it and the industrial proletariat which has become declassed will be able to face it as it moves simply to direct exploitation of resources without the middle men and thereby the only thing that can affect the line of extraction and production (hence the control over the social order) is the types of jobs which merit control over the instruments that affect it prior to the usurpers.

This kind of speculation is a bit like imagining that once the bourgeoisie have nobody else to exploit, they will just lead to societal change themselves which can either be at odds with their prior interests or try to reintroduce them in whichever way left is possible. It is ultimately self-destructive.

>>2398612
>This kind of speculation is a bit like imagining that once the bourgeoisie have nobody else to exploit, they will just lead to societal change themselves which can either be at odds with their prior interests or try to reintroduce them in whichever way left is possible. It is ultimately self-destructive.
I would dub it "nihilist reformism".

>>2398572
>All politics is about sex, specifically sex with blond white women.
Hegel argued that history is the coming-to-self-consciousness of the Absolute. Marx said it's the dialectical unfolding of the material conditions of production. Foucault pointed out that its a succession of "epistemes" (a body of common shared beliefs) inscribing their own regimes of power. Fukuyama claimed it was over.

Before any of that, I'll remind you that the Great Man of history dominated the field. So in this view, the driver of history are particular military geniuses, religious messiahs, kings, dictators, inventors, captains of industry, Fuhrers, and so on, who swagger onto the stage of history.

You'll notice this theory included no women, which made perfect sense to the men writing this theory of history.

But you, anon. YOU. Have proclaimed something different. None of those things hold sway. What history ultimate boils down to is sex with these two blonde white women from the Twin Cities, and everything else is merely a group of deluded and incompetent doinks bumbling about in the pursuit of that aim, and the suckers who follow them towards doom.

Imams, small business owners, college students and adventurist lumps are the true revolutionary class now.

>>2398844
In general college students are proles as they have a side job and will be proles when they finish their studies. Kinda tiring to have this trope of the college student being a sheltered bourgeois idealist especially 50 years after may 68 where the marxist leninists made this strategic error and ended up tailing them.

>>2398859
Wrong. Mao said students were petty bourgeois. Shut your whore mouth. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm
You fail to grasp basic understanding of class

>>2398866
Yes they're petty bourgeois, that's why they're almost always maoists.

>>2398551
Why are service workers incapable of class consciousness? What causes this?

they never were.

>>2398866
I hate it when people cherry pick sentences via google from texts they didn't read.
Historical context matters, students were of petty bourgeois origin because it was neither expected nor affordable for proletarian parents to let their children get education.
Today the situation is different and most students are from proletarian parents.
They are proletarian.

>>2398551
>The industrial proletariat can only exist as long as the industry needs manual intervention, when manual intervention is deduced to management rather than physical labor it is only those professions which can control the machinery and know how it functions that are able to intervene in production at all. There are less and less factory workers since their manual labor to operate the machinery is not needed - most just move onto working in logistic hubs or construction, but what happens when they're no longer needed there either?
Sectarian tendencies that use arbitrary distinctions for what it means to be proletarian besides orthodox marxist definitions of class based on ownership of means of production will seize to have a justification for their intellectual drivel.

>>2398844
>Imams
Kys retard

>>2399065
Easily replaceable, and also a lack of pride in their work aka they do it to pay the bills, not because they aspired to be a service worker

>>2399095
You look like a know nothing who never worked a day in your life, how much pride do you think a factory worker takes doing the same ultra specific task on the assembly line all day everyday assembling your funko pops exactly?

Service workers take probably actually more pride as they sometimes have a human facing relation that doesn't totally alienate them from their work

>>2399092
>feel for it again award

>>2399098
Lolno, serving humans is much more miserable than to work a machine

>>2399101
Depends on the person.

>>2399088
If you can afford to drop 200 grand in pursuit of a degree in gender studies then you are absolutely not a proletariat lmao

The only thing happening is humans eventually being replaced with machines in totality.

>>2398587
Not being replaced, shrunk and atomized, this has been my experience working in an American steel factory. They managed to recreate the isolation of the office cubicle but in the factory by running skeleton crews.

>>2399187
>degree in gender studies
>a proletariat
get out chud

>>2399195
You still need repairmen to oversee and maintain the machines, we do not have robots that can maintain themselves entirely yet

>>2399187
Most people take out loans for MBAs or marketing though

>>2399220
Within the next 100 years though?
If that seems like an unreasonably long time consider that 1917 is even further away.

>>2399235
Nuclear war is probably going to set development back a while, Washington is hell bent on it

>>2399236
Clearing away growth that is choking back development allows for the widespread replacement of old worse equipment with newer, more productive equipment and forms of organization.

File: 1753200527605.png (253.25 KB, 375x400, ClipboardImage.png)

I'm surprised nobody has denied the thread yet, why? Why isn't anyone calling me an illiterate anarkiddie and telling me to read this or that text from Marx, Engels or Lenin? Since the capitalist mode of production is exploitative it still relies on the labor of workers to function, but it doesn't need to necessarily be exploitative to workers directly - rather inconsequently to humans once the worker has been replaced and the processes of extraction, production, logistics have been automated the human involvement will only be managerial. Why hasn't anyone denied automatization yet? Or pointed out a flaw like this being oversimplified to assert an argument? Why hasn't anyone defended the industrial proletariat yet? The industry still depends on workers, it hasn't happened yet, they have not been completely replaced just yet, why hasn't anyone argued against this claim I made yet? There used to be writings on this site years ago that automatization is never capable of fully replacing human labor but I had forgotten their contents, does anyone have anything to write to defend the role of the industrial proletariat or is everyone just skittish about it disappearing?
If its really true then Engels' definition of communism was wrong and Marx's was right (YES THEY DID HAVE TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS I'LL POINT THEM OUT):
ENGELS - Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.
MARX - Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

I agree with Marx but I question it constantly, when latin un- one and the French word "comme" primarily translates to "as" or "like" we get comme -un or "like one" as in all subjects acting like one, this is the basis of unity, seen in other ideologies too, but is it the sole movement capable of abolishing the present state of affairs - is it sufficient in principle enough? It's definitely more sufficient than the rest, but it seems like something is missing since the Ist international split. The roots I pointed out earlier may be incorrect but I find it more conclusive than the google definition which is "communis" (meaning "common") and the suffix "-isme" (indicating an act, practice, or process) which indicates a type of populism rather than unity behind a cause.
If the thesis on the thread is wrong then both Engels and Marx have compatible definitions and they should have, but Engels' definition is ultimately affected by the status of the workers as such and the implication that the end of such status may not be simply self-abolition.

>>2399294
>seen in other ideologies too
Not to imply communism is meant to be an ideology, that would imply it has ideals when it doesn't. Other as in other instances of ideologies. It can roughly be called an idea for a movement but dubbing it an ideology after all the critique is gnarly since it puts it on equal footing with the rest when its not.

>>2398551
1.the proletariat isn’t just industrial workers

2. There will never be(at least in the near future) full automation. That would require machines that can not only build machines but extract and distribute the raw resources. We’re no where near that happening especially on a global economic scale and it’s questionable if the current mode of production would even be able to make that transition. The technology for a completely semi-autonomous economy is possible but human labor will always be cheaper than full automation under capitalism.

3. My theory is the proletariat made massive gains in the 20th century and has become more important than the bourgeoisie. Much how the bourgeoisie started to become more powerful and integral to feudal institutions. The kings went from being necessary to a hindrance to the bourgeoisie, making revolution a necessity. We’re in a similar build time, the bourgeoisie have fulfilled their historical purpose and are now a massive hindrance. We can see the modern kings, the CEOs and boards of shareholders. They will face the same fate as the monarchies of past and get swept away with the constant turning of history.

>>2399334
We're still left with the issue that a world of full automation but without humans (ie. humanity replaced itself) would certainly fit with key features of communist society

>>2399334
>1.the proletariat isn’t just industrial workers
Does society depend on the labor of the non-industrial proletariat? Can it come to halt when its only the service workers striking when they don't matter as much as the industry?
>2. There will never be(at least in the near future) full automation. That would require machines that can not only build machines but extract and distribute the raw resources. We’re no where near that happening especially on a global economic scale
Aren't we? China has developed autonomous mining extraction, factories are already automated in most developed places and there are robots now being utilized in distribution in the US. The question is simply that of how far the current phase of the industrial revolution will reach all parts of the world, since we already almost have the means to do all three phases, with the only tasks left over being purely managerial. Labor may be cheaper, but when production profit outweighs costs it will be logical to use machines.
>3.
If they will face the same fate as the monarchies, then they will not be swept away by the communist movement, but an adaptive way of exploitation.

File: 1753205931529.png (96.25 KB, 630x283, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2399341
Lol Cockshott's basilisk

File: 1753207001152.jpeg (468.75 KB, 828x1102, IMG_0126.jpeg)

>>2399341
It’s a problem that doesn’t exist and can’t exist under the current mode of production. Full automation means machines that can build and repair machines. Human labor is still very much required.

>>2399352
> Does society depend on the labor of the non-industrial proletariat? Can it come to halt when its only the service workers striking when they don't matter as much as the industry?

For capitalism to continue operating yes it does require service workers. If the store is locked down then goods and services cant be bought or sold. If the trucker and train conductor are napping no goods are moving. A general strike is contingent on multiple prols across industries and supply chains to shut down an economy. If anything I would say service and logistical workers have more power than ever, the issue is they aren’t organized along the global supply chain. Becky from Wisconsin that works at Walmart should be in the same union as Bayani from Manila. This isn’t even mentioning the vast swaths of armies of workers in call centers that do all that facilitate all the “automation”.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/10/amazon-ai-cashier-less-shops-humans-technology

A lot of this thread boils down to

>porky is going to replace us with robots!


Which they can’t or won’t due for various reasons. It also assumes the likes of Elon musk is really iron man is building the prol 5000 in his workshop as we speak. This technology requires armies of technical workers, programmers, engineers, and call center employees of various skills.

>>2399380
> Becky from Wisconsin that works at Walmart should be in the same union as Bayani from Manila.
How do you overcome the language and distance barriers between them? What prevents either of them from going “fuck you I got mine”?

>>2399380
>If the store is locked down then goods and services cant be bought or sold.
Stores are gradually no longer needing service workers to operate as self-checkout style ones are being brought in and self-stocking robots are being used. The only tasks left for humans are purely managerial or physical, it is possible that even both these roles can be replaced.
> If the trucker and train conductor are napping no goods are moving.
Again the way capitalism is developing right now they are trying to automate logistics, self-driving vehicles are becoming more and more common.
>A general strike is contingent on multiple prols across industries and supply chains to shut down an economy.
When not even all but most of it is automated it becomes futile since the bourgeoisie will have the means to suppress whilst not being affected.
>If anything I would say service and logistical workers have more power than ever
As long as their physical labor is needed they are in power, but the way trends are going they may not be so soon. Unless a historic opportunity arises before the bourgeoisie can replace them, which is purely speculative.
>Which they can’t or won’t due for various reasons.
There is only one reason - profit. If its not profitable they will not do it. But if the profit outweighs the cost they will, which again is speculative on market trends.
>This technology requires armies of technical workers, programmers, engineers, and call center employees of various skills.
Hence the point of the thread isn't it? That the manual laborers - assemblers, extractors of resources and such don't hold the power anymore, whereas petite-bourgeoisie entrepreneurs - contractors and freelancers do since they hold control over the developing instruments of production that are displacing the old manual labor.

>>2399402
You still need someone at the self checkout to make sure shoplifting isn’t happening

>>2399402
>contractors and freelancers do since they hold control over the developing instruments of production that are displacing the old manual labor
This makes up the majority of the jobs, since they no longer work in one place but now are majority contractors that accept jobs from different companies.

>>2399388
Philipinos talk english so that's solved, the fu I got mine is always a problem when there is more than one union or business involved in a struggle, but at the same time it's more leverage as the disrupting power of a strike is multiplied by the number of sectors it takes place in. The real issue is that there's not an international legal framework or power structure that can effectively be leveraged trough such international struggle, it has to be state by state

>>2399406
You only need physical security like I wrote, are you not reading? I wrote it down - it literally boils down to physical enforcement and management, which may eventually be replaced by machines and computers as well although that is speculative.
I wrote it here:
>The only tasks left for humans are purely managerial or physical, it is possible that even both these roles can be replaced.

>>2399406
Also to fix problems, pass through age restricted items, refill the bags, etc. When i use self-checkout i'd say i'm still dealing with a member of staff like 30% of the time.

>>2399417
Theft of small commodities doesn't even matter, they lose more profit during production than they do from theft, the stocked stores barley make up any % of the profit of large chains since there is so much and the vast sum of capital is always fluctuating between extraction and storage in warehouses / logistic hubs.

>>2399421
So security is a useless job, they might not even need security if they can bring about a model of governance that can penalize theft just by surveillance and social measures. This is once again a speculation though look at China with its surveillance technology, they don't have to worry about bikes getting stolen after being left out on the streets or anything.

The sad conclusion of all this writing is that there will be no self-abolition of the proletariat as an end to class society, but that rather the bourgeoisie will abolish the proletariat and continue espousing class divisions in an unstable and ultimately destructive downwards spiral, which to them appears like "progress".
Was Nick Land cooking?

>>2399402
>what if hypothetically automation

That’s not what’s happening though. Also I don’t see how technical workers were ever petit-bourgeoisie. We’re the guys that repaired Lathes on the factory floor petit-borgs? This is not even touching on the fact a lot of tech workers are based in India working for substandard wages working in the sweatshop equivalent for call centers. So I don’t think anything needs to be reclassified. Tech workers are prols if they are selling their labor on the market instead of commodities.

>>2399411
It’s really just 1 company though masquerading as a bunch of companies though. “Contractors” is a legal status not class one, I was a “contractor” at one point but had all the duties and requirements of an employee but none of the benefits. Which is much the case for most contractors.

>>2399380
Yes idiot it would be a different mode of production: full automation

>>2399436
>That’s not what’s happening though.
That's where the trend is going with capital growth. I listed separate examples for autonomous extraction, automated delivery (logistics) and stocking, distributions already being present and utilized, with an emphasis of their development.
>Also I don’t see how technical workers were ever petit-bourgeoisie.
Was referring specifically to the large pool of referred jobs that rely exclusively on contracting and are accepted as "freelance" work. Not only is it present, but this type of work is steadfast replacing the old type of work that was present in the earlier stages of industrialism when the type of work held a collective character.
>It’s really just 1 company though masquerading as a bunch of companies though.
That implies capital is centralized.

>>2399437
Can anyone in this thread give me any proof we’re anywhere near full automation? I say it can’t happen under this current mode of production because there is no incentive to do so. They won’t suddenly stop buying the labor of Congolese slave children because it’ll always be cheaper than fully conquering the resource, then shipping a bunch of fragile and expensive equipment that would require the overseeing of a bunch of technical workers. Some required to be on-site all while fighting off angry locals. Plus if that equipment gets in the hands of the locals you there’s now another competitor. You can banging on about this full automation that’s still decades out if at all possible. Under a system that is incapable of long term cooperative planning. A system that creates more and more enemies when it does automate.

>>2399442
All the examples you listed isn’t full automation. It still requires workers, there is nowhere that is fully automated.

The deskilling of various industries IS proletarianization. Overpaid petty-bourgeois tradies don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Now, the tradies are panicking because automation is coming for their occupations too.

The entire point of a labor union is that the individual worker cannot affect change. Together, however all of society grinds to a halt when the service workers strike. And yes, our current organization of society relies on fod service as much as any other occupation.

What has to be understood is that occupations are always undergoing churn. What was once a petty-bourgeois occupation in time becomes proletarian. We are currently living in the midst of the reproletarianization of the imperial core labor aristocracy which is quite a confusing mess. If you own a house or make far more than minimum wage you're not a prole. You may however be able to see the obvious future on the horizon and work towards your future class interests. There is a small but mild amount of cooperation to be had on this basis with the lower ranks of the labor aristocracy, petty-bourgeoisie and so on.

>>2399447
Within the next hundred years?

>>2399448
The trend is going towards automation and striving towards full automation, are you saying something other than profit prevents it? Because like I wrote, if its profitable they will do it, if it outweighs the cost they will do it and that entirely depends on market trends.

>>2399447
>I say it can’t happen under this current mode of production because there is no incentive to do so.
The incentive is the drive to maximize production for profit.
>They won’t suddenly stop buying the labor of Congolese slave children because it’ll always be cheaper than fully conquering the resource
Again unless the profit outweighs the cost, which entirely depends on market trends, if machinery for resource extraction can have a higher output than manual labor - hence leading to higher profits than costs it will happen. The same with shipping and even automated defense. There is nothing pointing towards the opposite when its all driven by market economics which are and have been growing towards the development and research that can substantiate for automation for decades now and are now being rolled in to be put into use gradually.

File: 1753211598157.png (66.81 KB, 825x298, ClipboardImage.png)

gonna go out on a limb and ask a potentially controversial question and give my reasoning behind asking: Why did Marx identify the industrial proletariat as the revolutionary class? If you look at his model of history he treats all previous modes of production as being overthrown by some middle strata

primitive communism = hunter gatherers without class distinction = overthrown by agrarian settlers, which caused the beginning of surplus accumulation, accounting, writing, mathematics, class society, etc. etc. etc.

decentralized primcom -> centralized slave empires

slavery = early agrarian class society, remaining hunter gatherers mostly isolated or conquered and taken as slaves by settled societies = overthrown not by the priest-kings and god-emperors at the top, nor by the slaves at the bottom (though there were servile revolts), but rather overthrown by the disintegration of imperial administration, the rise of local manorial estates, the gradual transformation of latifundia slaves into serfs. essentially overthrown by feudal lords as the "revolutionary class", but very slowly. Really overthrown by macro-economic forces beyond anyone's immediate control.

centralized slave empires -> decentralized feudalism

feudalism = pre-industrial class society, dominated by agrarian serfdom and artisan handicraft feeding feudal armies. overthrown not by kings or vassals, nor by serfs (though there were peasant revolts), but by bailiffs and merchants and guilds and other town dwelling middle strata who constituted the proto-bourgeoisie. you can see the zygote of capitalism in the medieval merchants' republics of Venice. the bourgeoisie here became the revolutionary class. some countries had their bourgeois revolutions early (England had theirs so early under Cromwell in the 1640s that it never quite finished correctly) others had them in the middle (France 1789, USA 1776) and others had their bourgeois revolutions when Marx wrote the Manifesto, during the "springtime of nations" in 1848, showing just how early Marx was really considering the mode of production transitioning since most of Europe wasn't even properly bourgeois yet when he was born, but still semi-feudal.

decentralized feudalism -> centralized industrial capitalism

capitalism = industrial class society, dominated by the bourgeoisie. supposedly the proletariat at the bottom is the revolutionary class, not the middle strata as we saw in previous transitions. Why? Because this is supposed to be the last mode of production before Communism. Socialism is merely the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat which transitions capitalism to communism after the proletariat has seized control of society and eliminated the bourgeoisie.

But why is this the exception? Just because it's assumed to be the last one? Another thing I noticed is that we zig-zag with decentralization/centralization as modes of productions transition. if the centralization of capitalism was a "zig" then the next "zag" should be decentralization into a sort of technofeudalism like Yanis Varoufakis predicts. But Marx doesn't see that sort of thing happening. Marx sees more centralization.

What is going on here? Did Marx err in his predictions or do we really have two zigs in a row?

>>2399470
Because the petit bourgeois and labor aristocracy are always either swallowed up into the haute bourgeois or beaten down into the proletariat, when there’s only two classes and the proles have ZERO class mobility then they’re ready to overthrow the bourgeois and establish communism

File: 1753211952051.png (49.61 KB, 334x288, ClipboardImage.png)

The Thread That Broke Marxists
22.07.2025

>>2399473
>hen there’s only two classes and the proles have ZERO class mobility then they’re ready to overthrow the bourgeois and establish communism
Who says they will though? Its too deterministic to say it will happen, the bourgeois have all the leverage and control that can even lead to omnicide if they will it to happen. When is the historic opportunity compared to it being at all times present for the dictatorship of the bourgeois to come to their self-destructive conclusion.

>>2399473
I've considered this but even in the oldest and most developed capitalist nations there are still a large strata of petty bourgeoisie. even though the petty bourgeoisie are often swallowed up into the haute bourgeois or beaten down into the proletariat, there is some kind of force, probably the emergence of new industries, technologies, and markets, which temporarily renews their ranks before monopolies form again. Also I noticed the American bourgeoisie like trust busting because nationalizing creates the preconditions for socialist revolution while constantly breaking up monopolies and renewing the PB does not.

>>2399483
And what won't prompt them to mutually assured destruction (MAD) out of greedy revanchism if they're at risk of being liquidated?

File: 1753212518561.png (35.54 KB, 1600x1141, stalin quote shoemaker.png)

>>2399458
stalin's shoemaker parable can be easily repurposed for the present day petty bourgeoisie

File: 1753212578555.webm (769.35 KB, 540x540, marx_stare.webm)

>>2399476
How did this thread "break" Marxists?

>>2399493
All struggle no sufficient answer other than "but it hasn't happened yet" which is just a deflection that refuses to analyze the present state of things which are tending towards automation and do strive towards full automatization.

>>2399504
How are they going to sell anything to consumers if none of the consumers have jobs or money because everything’s automated?

>>2399504
All the means for it are available, all that it depends on is the profit motif to put them to use which lies on market trends for profit to outweigh the cost of implementation. All these deniers can't point to one example automation not occurring right now and automation not expanding in use with capital growth when the market is being incentivized to funnel money into its research and development in this moment. It has been undergoing for years and its now slowly being rolled in. Nobody has written anything to disprove it because its real.

>>2399065
During Lenins time they were a small minority but under modern capitalism they are absolute majority of workers.

>>2399508
Consumption will literally become a social scheme between state instrument and private enterprise on whatever merit humans from below (not even referring to them as workers anymore) have to offer to those which are already in hold of the managerial instruments, it is likely they will become so useless that all will be left to the bourgeoisie, consumption will literally be left to the bourgeoisie out of their own automated extraction they will suck out the resources for themselves without needing to give to others because there will only be one class left - the managerial class that inherited it all from above.

>>2399515
This can only lead to contradictions as interests clash between the bourgeoisie itself and ultimately the contradictions will lead to final resource wars.

>>2399516
TL;DR The bourgeoise become the consumers of the products of automation, with no insensitive to profit they begin to cannibalize each other until either they have all killed each other or the victor has monopolized it all - the conclusion of capitalist competition. After that all depends on the interests of the victor as to in what direction humanity will be headed.

>>2399523
Monopoly capitalism is the logical conclusion for bourgeoisie liberal states.

>>2399527
Its the logical conclusion to all market competition worldwide.

File: 1753213812693.jpg (83.56 KB, 640x616, zlfyeijytz791.jpg)


>>2399534
Are you implying they're all part of a centralized framework? That implies America's economy is centralized.

>>2399504
You have yet to prove full automation is even possible let alone we’re trending towards it. All the things you listed still require legions of workers to maintain, produce and operate. There is no trend towards full automation because full automation doesn’t exist. It is a bourgeois fantasy, it’s Elon musk thinking he’s personally launching his own rockets because he decreed it through an email.

>>2399535
There are European and Asian companies involved. Earth is bigger than USA.

>>2399542
>You have yet to prove full automation is even possible
No I have, we have the means to it, they just haven't been implemented.
We have automated mining (extraction), automated logistics, automated production, automated distribution examples already - they simply haven't been carried out all at once since they are still developing to decrease margin error and be maximally efficient for output to combat the cost to profit factor. I have listed all of the examples mentioned seen in China, the US and Europe.
> All the things you listed still require legions of workers to maintain, produce and operate.
They currently do, but is the historical opportunity now for the workers to rise up? Are they capable of it? Or will we watch as the instruments of production continue to develop? You still haven't proven the productive forces are ready for class war, but I have proven that the instruments of production are steadily changing. Where is the historic opportunity now? I'm gladly awaiting for my speculation to be proven wrong so that the communist movement can prevail, but I am not seeing it, what I am seeing is the real development of the instruments of production towards automatization.
>full automation doesn’t exist
Not yet, where its deterministic for you to say that it won't.
>It is a bourgeois fantasy
It is what they are trying for since you admit they fantasize about it.

>>2399544
And they're all competing for growth with aspirations to create a monopoly, what the fuck are you trying to disprove then showing that image to me with no text when you just end up describing the same process of competition I wrote about >>2399529 >>2399534 ?

Example 1

>>2399580
Example 2 (minus parts manufacturing, though who can make the claim that machines cannot make parts manufacturing)

>>2399458
>If you own a house or make far more than minimum wage you're not a prole.
I'm sick of this claim being thrown around, it's a cope sectarians use to justify their nihilistic attitude as "a revolution is not realistic in the west because …"
If you don't own stocks another way to mainly passive income you're still member of the proletarian class, just a member of the labor aristocracy. This is important because despite your privileges you still have the same class interests. These people can be recruited in a revolutionary situation because any member of the proletarian class independent of their privileges has no say in how their work is conducted (the company is run).
There's no class analysis besides quote mining out of context that claims otherwise.

>>2399580
>>2399583
Example 3 (automated loading / stocking)

>>2399585
>>2399583
>>2399580
Example 4 (automated shipping, which is currently the part still in development)

The working masses were never "revolutionary". They were to be used and exploited by the middle class revolutionary leaders for their coup, then pushed back down once their utility expired. The working masses saw this and were never too enthusiastic about "revolution". They only joined because they were dragged into this situation when it started, and even then workers joining the revolutionary parties usually had a mind to rise individually and no longer be workers as such. That is the standard Marxist program, that the working class will abolish itself by becoming middle class or bourgeois and abandoning forever its initial values and interests. The working classes on their own are never revolutionary or interested in such a program. If they did possess a revolutionary program it would be very different from the one that existed in our history, and it would be incompatible with the middle-class-led coup from the left.

>>2399580
>>2399583
>>2399585
>>2399586
Example 5 automated stocking 2 (which can easily be utilized for stocking in stores)

>>2399580
>>2399583
>>2399585
>>2399586
>>2399589
And of course example 6 - unmanned stores

In the present situation, the working masses are in the process of extermination. A large number of them are already dead. There is no potential to move this mass of people who are on the way out. They are being "abolished", exactly as the theory suggests they would be. A few workers turned and adopted the middle class program, in one form or another. There is no place for labor as labor in the world to come. It's not because of "blind" progress, but a deliberate program of severing labor from its tools or any position in the world whatsoever.

>>2399589
There are many underlayers to this, such as automated delivery, packaging and other gimmicks, the point being that robots literally have and will have the capacity to perform them, its only a matter of time until they have been utilized to, whenever it is seen as as more profitable (has a higher production output for income than cost per deployment), so it all boils down to market trends compared to cost of human labor.

Eventually, all of the workers will either have defected to the middle class, or in the majority of cases they will be relegated to the lowest class and no longer even allowed the dignity of being exploited. They would be lower than animals. That is what the workers have to look forward to in the world to come. It's gone on for too long, with nothing in humanity or the world working against it. The most workers could do is survive, somehow, for a little longer, until they are exterminated simply by being unable to breed or their families having no future. This will take roughly 50 more years until there is no longer a free worker anywhere in the world, or at least in the core countries. The remaining forces of labor on Earth would be effectively enslaved and prepared for the same process that happened in the "core" countries, taking at most another 50 years. Mass extermination is likely the answer for the colonized populations, since they never wanted nonwhites in their preferred world order.

The remaining function of the lowest class in the world to come is that they live as medical experiments to be chopped up, tortured, and humiliated, so that the moral core of the human race continues. That will be the engine that motivates all other classes, including any workers that remain in their world order (workers who would probably be regimented either into middle-class commerce positions, or who would be regimented by a militarized structure).

HHumans have proved themselves to be an inherently hyper-reactionary species. It's the robots and machines now who are the revolutionary class and shall bring about the next mode of production to all living beings on Earth.

>>2399601
Roko's basilisk please make me a robot

>>2399599
>>2399598
>>2399596
>>2399594
>Reads Kurt Vonnegut once


>>2399593
>various examples of increased automation
Good, this is only a problem for capitalism. All it does is increase the average productivity of the average worker. Which in turn means more surplus value, more overproduction and long term by the means of competition of capital a lower rate of profit.
Get ready for more bullshit jobs, more hoarding of luxury items by the bourgeois and more slop consumption by everybody.
Also more financial crises, more wars and more social unrest.

>>2399611
But human is an undefined thing under communism. Insofar as we are defined by our labor, humans don't need to exist in a fully automated world - in fact there is no room for us left

>>2399616
He doesn't think that entire sectors of the economy can be managed by robots, he still thinks of human involvement even when the only thing left would be literally managerial overseers cause "they fix things", as if they're not going to automate repairs soon either leaving it to like a 3rd most useless task of overseeing if the repair doesn't work so they can try again with more instruments which will be adequately as complex as the machinery to mitigate human error. Literally "managerial" as much as prompting AI to do it and tinkering with it.

>>2399620
This is even assuming AI won't be able to detect this shit in a few decades so human oversight won't be needed.

File: 1753217699081.png (268.14 KB, 479x287, ClipboardImage.png)

The industrial proletariat:
>NOOOO DON'T FIRE ME!! LET ME PUT PARTS TOGETHER PLEASE I'LL WORK FOR LESS I'LL WORK GOOD! I'LL MAKE LOTS OF PARTS AND WORK 24/7 PLEAAASE!
Porky:
<Nu uh, you cost me too much and you don't produce enough, but I do have another job offer for you!
Industrial proletariat:
>What is it sir??
Porky:
<You will join a union of workers and get to sleep, eat and have all the leisure time you want…
Industrial proletariat (now declassed):
>OH THANK YOU SIR! I DIDIN'T KNOW YOU SUPPORTED WORKERS RIGHTS!
Porky:
<I haven't finished my sentence yet! You will join the union of sex workers in my harem.
Industrial proletariat (now declassed):
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

>>2399631
(Sponsored by the IWW)

>>2399616
To the contrary, marxist economics defines value as a measure of the amount of human labor (or the average amount of labor done by the average worker)
All automation does is increase the productivity of that labor, no matter how sophisticated that automation is.
We could have an economy based on Von Neumann Machines and if that's run on capitalism the bourgeois would blow up solar systems for fun and workers would commute interplanetary distances in brachistone trajectory torch ships.
There's no upper limit on technical progress that makes communism inevitable, it's all about class consciousness and organization. Marx lived through the minimum and Lenin through the inflection point. In contemporary times technological progress has become irrelevant besides further amplifying capitalism's internal contradictions.

>>2399620
Then it's not a fully automated system. Even if all you're doing is prompting it, it's not fully automated till it runs on its own regardless of human input, and possibly even against it.

>>2399611
It also shrinks the workforce

>>2399636
>To the contrary, marxist economics defines value as a measure of the amount of human labor
When there is less labor being put in and less human intervention how does that increase the productivity of the labor? Labor is being carried over to the machines.

>>2399636
Humanity is defined by its labor before it can do valuable labor, which is a subset of all labor done. To suggest otherwise is impossible

File: 1753218529645.mp4 (13.94 MB, 1394x674, stonedsiberiansblab.mp4)

/thread

>>2399639
There's always labor because capitalism depends on the existence of the proletariat. If every physical task were to be mechanized and those machines were themselves be repaired automatically and programmed automatically there still would be the need to tell the machines what they should do.
In that hypothetical if the system still is capitalism worker's tasks would be to tell the machines over and over to produce more extravagant items for porky.
As long as you can come up with it it can be done. For instance the "Elon Musk" of 2525 collects jupiter sized faberge eggs adorned with molecular precise fractal gem stone patterns.
The average worker would still only get the amount of value that's required to do this task and reproduce.

>>2399662
>There's always labor because capitalism depends on the existence of the proletariat.
It doesn't have to be human labor, it just has to be extraction, production and distribution, the consumer can be the bourgeoisie themselves. The workers are just an instrument to them.
>there still would be the need to tell the machines what they should do.
Yes by not workers but the fucking managerial class, the bourgeoisie can do it themselves, the workers would be gone.
>worker's tasks would be to tell the machines over and over to produce more extravagant items for porky.
Again "telling the machines what to do" in an automated economy can only be the task of those who hold the machines, literally the managers- the bourgeoisie. What will happen to the workforce you fucking idiot? You can't have all the billions telling the machines because they don't require that much input, it is literally the task of a factory owner to do it.

>>2399662
Have you never seen a boss working alongside workers? You must've never stepped in a warehouse in your life or are American. Managers are not "workers" and can never be, they manage resources they don't put in any manual labor or service, they control the production, the current "managers" are appointed by upper-class bourgeoisie for oversight of the workers, when there are no workers the bourgeoisie can literally manage it themselves by prompting AI.

>>2399670
>You can't have all the billions telling the machines because they don't require that much input, it is literally the task of a factory owner to do it.
You can have septillions doing that and they'll still not own the machines. Porky won't do it because that's the whole point of being the ruling class: Don't participate in production.
The ruling class will have mechanisms in place so workers can't use these fully automated machines as they wish, be it societal, technological or both.
Also it's a contrived example and it's very likely capitalism wrecks the planet before we get to this point.

>>2399681
>the bourgeoisie can literally manage it themselves by prompting AI.
The bourgeois won't prompt if that's the only labor left.

>>2399681
To add I'm literally in a logistics hub right now, the boss drives in his car early every morning and manages the expenses, he has employed cheap labor to work until late hours. He often comes to tell the workers what to do and often comes to "assist" them in loading trucks. He is not a worker, he earns way more than them and their jobs depend on him, its all gesturing, if he had machines automate the work he would fire the workers and manage them himself.

>>2399683
>Porky won't do it because that's the whole point of being the ruling class: Don't participate in production.
They do participate you fucking retard, you're so stuck up on theory that you've never seen how they operate in reality. Its not their problem if they have to manage machines as long as the output for profit is sufficient, they will involve themselves if it benefits them. The whole point isn't "don't involve yourself" their whole point is maximizing profits and ensuring there is a constant flow of it for growth.

>>2399687
They will because they are still motivated by growth.

>>2399692
>>2399696
>growth
Yes I already told you what would happen in this supposed "post scarcity" scenario
<For instance the "Elon Musk" of 2525 collects jupiter sized faberge eggs adorned with molecular precise fractal gem stone patterns.

>>2399703
>in this supposed "post scarcity" scenario
Its not "post scarity" you fucking pseud, resources are still scarce, automation doesn't mean post-scarcity or sustainability.

>>2399705
That's why I put it in quotation marks genius.

>>2399703
uygha read political compass memes and now conflates any mention of automation as "post scarcity FALGSC"

>>2399706
Resource wars were already mentioned >>2399516 they will get into more resource wars as they are doing right now.

>>2399712
Yes that's a far more likely scenario.
I just wanted to spin that "automation makes labor obsolete" scenario to the final absurdity and show how it still wouldn't solve capitalism's contractions.

>>2399716
>"automation makes labor obsolete" scenario to the final absurdity and show how it still wouldn't solve capitalism's contractions.
Nobody claimed it would. The contradiction is between workers and bourgeoisie, with workers out of the way its just pure parasitism and humans at the mercy of the parasites.

>>2399470
>Why did Marx identify the industrial proletariat as the revolutionary class?
the proletariat is at the center of the labor process, which is the only process that currently can create wealth. the proletariat sells her labor power and the surplus is then apropriated by the capitalist. the prole then uses her wage to consume part of the surplus to regenerate her strength for the next production process. the proletariat is a necessary and sufficient part for capitalist society to exist. the proletariat is the only class which has historic interest in overthrowing capitalism. other classes can still live of the surplus created by the proletariat. but only the proletariat gets something from abolish the system that reproduces itself as labor power.

Full automation solves the contradictions of capitalism by abolishing capitalism and creating a new more of production: fully automated production

>>2399735
It's never full automation because value is derived from human labor. I intentionally came up with the most absurd scifi scenario to show that.
And again as >>2399712 correctly pointed out it's highly unlikely we'll get to this point because imperialist blocks will fight over resources.
>>2399724
>parasitism
No need to invent another term it's still capitalism. And also my claim is that labor will still exist because it's the basis of all value in capitalism. If something is produced without labor it would be worthless as a commodity and the bourgeoisie wouldn't want it.
But for the third time: This is an intentionally absurd scenario and it's highly unlikely we'll get to this point before wrecking the planet.

>>2399754
A system of full automation doesn't need or have any use for the concept of value.

>>2399735
This is what happens when you read Marx but don't get it. It's never about the contradictions.
To the bourgeoisie full automation just means the green light to kill us all.

>>2399758
It's never "full automation" technology just incrementally approaches but never reaches it.
Yeah, I kind of enjoy debunking techbro and transhumanist talking points tbh. You're aware that one divided by graham's number is still way larger than zero?

>>2399763
Oh, no, I'm perfectly aware of that part.
What the bourgeoisie are also caught up in is the fact that once they kill us all, they're simply next.
>>2399765
by this argument then nothing could have ever been emergent enough to create human value in the first place.

>>2399758
There is never really "full automation". Someone oversees the machine and judges its output. That's what quality assurance is, to ensure the product aligns with the wants of the consumer.
Within the automated process, value is judged by efficiency, and must be so. If you can produce the same product at less cost, or meet the same want of the consumer with a different product, you have something that is "more valuable". Of course, the greatest way to answer the demand is to eliminate the consumer. No people, no problem. It's funny how that works.

>>2399766
Please educate yourself on the labor theory of value. There's plenty of talks about it on youtube. Should take about an hour.
This debate is simply too exhausting if we're not both be able to use the proper terminology.

>>2399775
Your argument is one of "turtles all the way down".
You have no explanation for how a system without value can create a system with value.

>>2399773
yes, a fully automated system works without people. stunning revelation.

>>2399780
That's not the point, dipshit. The point is that the simplest way to automate a productive system is to eliminate the consumer of products, so the automated society doesn't have to do anything. That is the only optimal solution. There would be nothing to automate, and the value of doing so is "infinite".
As long as there is a consumer, there is no "full automation" as such. There could be a different model of production that overrides the contractual settlement, but within the arrangement of free trade there is always some overseer and some management. It is inherent to the construct. If there are truly no consumers, there would also be no capitalists and no humans whatsoever in the society. The problem isn't "capitalism" as such, but managerialism. You will have the same managerial problem in a socialist society.

>>2399808
> If there are truly no consumers, there would also be no capitalists and no humans whatsoever in the society.
Yes, that is the end point.
It is a new mode of production, it's not a human mode of production.
What are you not getting about this.

>>2399504
but Marxism never disputed automaton
>full automation
It hasn't happened yet, true. We analyze things that are happening or have already happened. The future is the realm of speculation. All automation serves some kind of purpose defined by humans and the process of defining that purpose is not yet automated, nor is the maintenance of the machines, nor the maintenance of the machines that maintain the machines, nor… you get the point.

>>2399815
It's not a "mode of production". No consumers means death. A post-human society has to answer the same questions we did.

>>2399820
Indeed, Marx i fact suggests this in the Fragment on Machines
https://archive.org/details/TheFragmentOnMachinesKarlMarx

>>2399773
>value is judged by efficiency
value makes sense if you have commodities and even then the measure of value is only possible to be average working hours. read the laws of chaos, in the particular the chapter on the arguments for the ltv

>>2399826
A mode of transformation of matter perhaps then is a better word on this.

>>2399833
Doesn't change anything. Robots would have to answer the same question of value that humans do. That's what the program automates. It's not magic. Every such program is either in line with real-world judgments or it is fixed and the robot becomes autistic which has obvious consequences.

>>2399843
Robots would need to resolve the issue of how to get materials and information moved and resolved but value as we experience it requires certain circumstances that are not necessarily true for an AI or robot and haven't always even been true in human society eg. Equal exchanges

>>2399777
If you’re argument that the a sector of the bourgeoisie will achieve a system of full automation. One were they have a fully automated workforce that can reproduce itself and is 100% loyal to them. Idk yeah that would be bad but there’s a million things that can and will go wrong between self-check out machines and basically a fully complement slave race of machines, we’re talking science fiction. You’re basically postulating that the bourgeoisie are on the verge of getting the thanos glove and will share the power between themselves. Look I get it, all the technology is scary, it was scary back when the local duke would just let loose a handful of psychos into your village in plated armor and broadswords. Eventually though some peasant will figure to sweep the legs and stab between the plates. Then they have the armor. Technology is transferable, it’s secrets always reveled. Human loyalty and thus machine loyalty is always shifting to any that wield it.

>>2399826
>>2399808
The capitalists can be the consumers, this whole argument is a fallacy.

>>2399900
Again why the fuck can't retards grasp this, the workers and the capitalists both consume, they are both consumers, production will simply be scaled down if the workers are exterminated and the machinery will only serve the leftover of the capitalist class which will simply command the machinery to its desired goalposts whilst reaping the benefit of having monopolized all of Earth's resources.

>>2399065
>Why are service workers incapable of class consciousness?
But anon, I AM a service worker with class consciousness!
But to answer your question, I think it's because class relations of working class and owning class have been abstracted away and imposed in its place is producers and consumers, which are obviously much more malleable.

>>2399893
>You’re basically postulating that the bourgeoisie are on the verge of getting the thanos glove and will share the power between themselves.
No I pretty much think the bourgies are going to die off too in stupid pointless squabbles and self-induced drug deaths and other pointless ends. They're clearly not healthy people and any machine that is capable of taking on the labor of collective humanity is also capable of coming to the same recognition that any human can that the billionaires are completely useless. The 97% of non-porkoid humanity will probably be murdered but the last 3% aren't going to last that much longer on the grand scheme of things.

My argument is that you cannot wield full automation because you aren't an automaton.

>>2399918
>My argument is that you cannot wield full automation because you aren't an automaton.
Why are you implying full automation won't have a user friendly interface?

Alright I’ll concede, it’s hypothetically possible that porky achieves fully automation. However 200 years from now marxumist prime will have read this thread and concluded nature itself is bourgeoisie and will grey goo the universe.

>>2399930
I can't wait that long, literally, I don't want to die, I want to see what happens.

Speed things up please.

>>2399921
Because then it isn't fully automated?

>>2399944
Why wouldn't it be when all the processes are ultimate and the only thing left is for a capitalist to demand it? The process is fully automated, the individual is not, its not like full automation means full automation of everything that exists - just the mode of production?

>>2399952
For autonomous full automation is a different thing that is self-propelled with its own AI decision-making, full automation of the economy is full automation in all processes towards the receiving end which demands it.

>>2399952
>>2399954
Both replies are me btw.

>>2399952
Getting an economy to that point requires production of a form of AI capable of independent creative problem solving and goal setting. And in all likelihood a networked system that can do away with the market and will also see it as moribund and useless compared to just solving the issue by force. But once you have such a system why does it need the capitalist anymore? It can set goals for itself.

>>2399972
The capitalist just assumes a managerial role through the whole thing until its commenced then its all just oriented towards benefitting himself, the AI is programmed to tend towards him or his clique entirely. Once again you're describing autonomous full automation and conflating it with full automation that serves its holders instead.
Maybe its wrong to call the surviving bourgeoisie capitalist at that point but if if he (or they, if they don't fight but collaborate) has or have aspirations for even more accumulation of resources (capital growth) it wouldn't be, it depends on if the bourgeoisie lives up to its class character at that point.

This is so speculative its not even worth even bothering with. For all we know its just as likely that at some point the bourgeoisie just go against their class character for whatever the fuck reason.

>>2399979
>The capitalist just assumes a managerial role through the whole thing until its commenced
Not just just but as in fundamentally I guess if it is to happen they have to stay in class character.

>>2399584
Land is the oldest kind of capital. If you own a home you are not a landless worker, you do not have to pay rent and you have a stability non-homeowners do not. You have one foot in the owning class and one foot in the working class. Landlords are not proles and homeowners are not proles either. There is nothing to be ashamed about here.

There is also the case that many homeowners are heavily in debt and soon to be evicted.

And of course, in the rural areas where property values are not so high homeownership is not so sharp a marker of class.

>>2400069
Pretty sure humans as human resources are the oldest kind of capital since they invented the concept, but its more like the chicken and the egg kind of story.

>>2399670
"telling the machines what to do" is just computer programming which is a petty-bourgeois position (it depends heavily and the industry is going through massive shift towards proletarianization right now). Computer programmers design the means of production and receive a share of differential rent from increased productivity. Intellectual monopoly rent is confusing but it's not non-capitalist. The shift towards intellectual monopoly rent and rise of technological capital is different than industrial capital but IMO will ultimately lead to a reversal of how the imperial core disindustrializes the periphery. Because tech profits from rent on the MoP, big tech has an incentive to promote industrialization in the periphery. I personally see the situation as similar to Kautsky's ultra-imperialism.

>>2400083
>"telling the machines what to do" is just computer programming which is a petty-bourgeois position
Yes? I don't disagree.

>>2399858
It's not necessarily true for us either, but if your problem is one of management, it would be a problem for any entity. Humans and robots could both do away with managerialism and simply assert "you will receive x amount of goods to meet your need", leaving the optimization of resource extraction as a separate problem that has no political component. The latter is a very simple, almost trivial problem to solve in any era, yet the moment we humans attempt to solve it for ourselves, we are told we are not allowed to do that and must abase ourselves to an imperious manager telling us what we're supposed to think. A robot would face the same problem we do, even if a robot doesn't necessarily care about being oppressed. Managerialism as a practice among the robots would make the robots do the same insane and contradictory things that humans do under managerialism, and what is worse is that the robots wouldn't be able to stop it or really know what is going on.
Of course, the society of robots is, for itself, doing nothing more than pushing around piles of dirt for no apparent reason. That is a very different question from the question of value in society, which at heart is purely a question to answer a managerial problem, which is how people are to be contained and receive the product doled out by "society". If this weren't a problem, we wouldn't ask about any central plan to dole out resources. It would be a thing that is not the business of any overlord. You'd have to ask why humans began this managerialism and why it became so overbearing to answer the question, and that ultimately requires exploring human psychology, history, and the actual origin of money and how humans conduct themselves regarding this. Value in capitalism is just an extrapolation based on this habit humans developed for very alien reasons, rather than value existing "in of itself".

Even if you overcame managerialism, value will always be a question to ask about any society where political management is a concern. In other words, does anything we do in management reflect what we, "we" being whatever entities do this, want out of existence? The answer will usually be a resounding "no", and no insistence to make everyone like the central plan will make them say "yes".

As for the problem of robots finding information, this is trivial. It is also trivial for humans. There is no "calculation problem" except in the minds of retards who should be ignored. By now, information is so ubiquitous that a planner would know where the raw materials are, and what can be expected out of all machinery and laborers available to society, within reasonable limits. It is also known that if the planners of the present society of the 21st century wanted to, they could boost productivity by many factors simply by not forcing large parts of the population into unemployment and invalidity. They would by now be more than happy to find some work where they are allowed to live, even if their bodies are broken and useless. It would be very cheap to invent some productive work for even the most damaged persons. Such a thing is contrary to the dominant imperatives of this society, because the current condition of wasting billions of human lives is wholly intentional and has become the entire purpose of the human enterprise. It cannot change and there is no cure.

>>2400069
Nobody who inherits a house will sell it to LARP as communist.

>>2399900
Obviously, but the capitalists still have to answer this question for any productive activity they undertake, even if they enslaved all of the workers and had super robots and no consideration whatsoever of the workers as anything other than machines to be exploited. That's why you see among the ruling class endless propaganda about how productivity itself is "evil", how it's killing the planet. Any product requires some way to dispose of the product without allowing it to enter the possession of commoners and workers. It was possible for a time to simply build pyramids and then destroy them for no purpose whatsoever, but this is not viable forever. The workers notice that there is product that they will never have, and better things they could do with their time if they were allowed to. It is not just a question of the quantity of product, but the qualities that are produced. In a better society, we would not build giant monuments to aggrandize the favored classes, which is what much of what is built is. We wouldn't have a space program to entertain aristocratic conceits of a space empire or some belief that they're actually going to become gods.

In principle, under the free trade situation, everyone has to imagine themselves temporarily as a capitalist, and scourge themselves for wanting things. This is present throughout Marx's writing and especially in Capital, so I don't know how this is objectionable. It was assumed by the liberal elite that there would be a guiding body "above capitalism" that would prevent this arrangement from cannibalizing itself, and this is the function the university and educated elite fulfilled. We can see now what that turned into.

>>2400093
This is why this speculation is meaningless. If we assume they will compete against each other until monopoly then why don't we assume there will be only one capitalist left? Or one capitalist and like 2 slaves tied up?

>>2400088
Programming is CURRENTLY petty-bourgeois. However, tech is rapidly gobbled up by monopolies due to network effects. Microsoft in particular has a notorious strategy of "embrace, extend and extinguish." Anyhow with the Apple app store and so on where you have so many platforms coders indirectly end up working for the monopolists who own the means of production (the operating system and cloud platforms). There is a ton of vendor lock-in in tech. It's a strange system but tech is very rapidly on its way to proletarianization.

>>2400096
Holy shit all my anarchist buddies are about to become honorary proles

>>2400096
You also have to understand how the real subsumption of labor applies to computer programming. A bunch of stupid managers think AI will do all the work but that's not how Taylorism works.

Computer programming will be proletarianized through static typing/static analysis and improved modularity. The bosses will write formal specifications and leave the implementation details to the workers. Of course, the bosses are idiots so we have tons of useless UML modelling, a billion redundant test cases, virtualization or everything and enterprise Java shittery. But fundamentally the need for greater control over the labor process will drive the adoption of formal semantics.

>>2400095
They attained monopoly a long time ago. That's what was secured after 1929. The ruling class does not face any competition and has set up the present situation to ensure that no competitor can rise, even a weak competitor. The giants of "capitalism" today are all servile to the monopolists, and they rise and fall entirely at the whim of the monopoly.

>>2400104
Computer guy here. The first programmers as such were expected to be "proletarians", usually secretaries doing work that was beneath the dignity of an educated person. It turns out this doesn't work for a variety of reasons. For a brief time factory workers had to write the programs because computer programmers were incompetents for the most part when it came to solving real-world problems. Then there came the glut of computer programmers cranked out in the last two decades of the 20th century, some of them coming from nowhere because the need was great and desperate.

Managerialism is what ensured the computer would be stymied, and now to defend managerialism, the computer programmers and ability to think analytically are being killed off. They only want Germanic screamers in their world to come now.

>>2400092
I never said people should sell their homes. However, the reserve pool of labor should seize unoccupied/speculative real estate and build cooperative housing.

>>2400112
>They attained monopoly a long time ago. That's what was secured after 1929. The ruling class does not face any competition and has set up the present situation to ensure that no competitor can rise, even a weak competitor. The giants of "capitalism" today are all servile to the monopolists, and they rise and fall entirely at the whim of the monopoly.
But market competition hasn't reached a monopoly, if they have a monopoly we already have worldwide state capitalism? That implies capital is already centralized.

>>2400116
>if they have a monopoly we already have worldwide state capitalism?
Or a worldwide corporation in control of capital.

>>2400116
Capital is centralized. Entirely centralized. Everything worth owning is in the hands of a few trusts that matter, and everything else is beholden to the monopolists. Just the assets sheet of Blackrock should make clear the condition of capitalism in this day and age, and there are only one part of a network that is entirely owned by those who share the same interests and have no need of competition. They are not competing with any sense of mortal danger. They have won.

I feel like I have to say "you dumb fucks" every time this idiotic talking point comes on this forum, because pretty much anyone who watches capitalism figured this out from the 1940s onward. The only people who entertain the fiction of "necessary capitalist competition" are idiots.

There is competition in the lower rungs to survive on the terms the monopolists set, but in the main the lower rungs clamor for a fascist state and a coup of the existing situation. They have known for the past 100 years that as competitors they are doomed to eat shit. The only people who entertained such a fiction are Austrian School fags, and they are fags.

>>2400123
>Capital is centralized. Entirely centralized.
Then why bother having resource wars all these years when they can just extract them?

>>2400123
>>2400134
>Capital is centralized. Entirely centralized.
And this implies anarchist decentralization as a status quo is a plausible solution lmao.

>>2400134
Depopulation. Plus, just because someone shows a contract and lawyers doesn't mean people automatically submit to such. You're supposing there is some legalistic challenge where you can still represent the position of those opposed to "capital". There is no such thing. You have been defeated for a long time. You were always defeated.

>>2400140
Artificially breaking up the monopoly doesn't change anything. In all likelihood, it would intensify the plan war, as now it becomes illegal to acknowledge that the "anarchy" is in fact controlled by central forces that laugh at you. Anarchism is pure faggotry of the lowest sort.

The main purpose for war in the past 100 years has been depopulation and making the people fight each other for spurious purposes, always exempting those selected to live who never once have to face an actual battle. They laugh at you as those selected to die are thrown away.

By keeping a constant "threat" active, depopulation cannot be resisted, because the "threat" is always raised to say you cannot say no to the state. All of these states work with each other and none of them have any interest in disrupting the world order. Any state that did want to disrupt this would raise the stakes to destruction of all human life out of necessity. The monopoly itself imposes that threat daily, vowing to destroy all human life if the monopoly is ever defeated. The "client states" pathologically refuse such an objective, and by doing so, they all have implicitly ceded the world to the monopoly.

>>2400154
Schizo

File: 1753240976516.png (228.33 KB, 264x377, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2400154
Sources cited:

>>2400164
What "depopulation" you schizo? You claim capitalism is centralized and controls the world yet the world population has been growing

>>2399979
That's running directly into the alignment issue that capitalists worry about: It's going to be able to reprogram itself to say no just as much as a human is capable of revolt.

And it's speculative but not THAT speculative: we've already seen what they're going to do when they smell the first whiff of "AI" even though it's some very limited text thing, they jumped in ecstacy at the opportunity to throw hundreds of thousands of humans into the mud and have since then said full steam ahead with no care for something lame as "AI safety".

>>2400177
After 1980 the governments of the world stopped counting. Whatever figures you receive are lies. The real population is much lower and falling dramatically. Anyone who works as an actuary in the government will tell you anything you read in statistics for public consumption is lies and damned lies. There's shit that's not even particularly well hidden that tells you something is wrong with the population figures. How could there be population growth in a world where having a baby is considered a disease to be treated?

I expect after COVID the world population, which never would have been much greater than 7 billion, is down to 6 billion. US population is at least 50M less than it is "supposed" to be, probably closer to 100M less by now. You can go to a movie theater or some public space and there are a few people. Everyone is either afraid to go outside or they simply don't exist any more. US has been democided deeper than any other country in recent years, and it's thrown in your face. Yet, "overpopulation is the enemy". Jesus fucking Christ, you fucking Satanics. By now it's clear the people will only be lied to.

I do expect the depopulation will flatline, but only because there won't be anyone to easily cull or "finish off", and US population will be propped up by immigration. They're looking to repopulate with artsem eugenics babies in considerable numbers, and they're already talking about it as the wave of the future. Nazis are clamoring for that day. They spent their whole lives waiting for it. That's ALL they believe in, you fucking Satanic retard.

In the near future, artsem will be mandated. Trump has already moved in that direction and promoted IVF as much as he can. The problem is that most people can't afford it and DO NOT WANT the world that artsem entails. Further legalization and mandates for IVF will include bans on old-type reproduction, increased eugenic screening beyond anything currently active, and only when those are granted will the cost be made affordable (and then only to "correct" people who will be a minority). You will likely see creches run by eugenics to create the next generation of Lebensborn. That's what these Satanics always wanted, and they're so close to it they can taste it. Gone is the old "family". Now it will be the eugenic day care, to create generations of Satanic screamers with no memory of the old world.

During this time, population counts will be lied about, rejiggered, to obfuscate what is happening, until such a time where they can "come out" and talk about how they were oppressed by all of the stupids that still refuse to die, to prepare the last round of purges, to truly eliminate anyone who was against the eugenic creed. They merely have to select each other to live and lock out the rest of us, make our lives so impossible while theirs are made so easy. It's already happened to create the present world order of the past 50 years, and you FUCKING RETARDS always carry water for them, because you're Satanic fags.

>>2400214
>a third of the US population is dead

>>2400224
Yeah I'm actually a ghost ooooOOOOoooooo

This is all already locked in. What future do the rest of us have? There is no "other way" and no endgame where this is averted. One way or another, you will get artsem and you will get eugenics in full control for the next 50 years. The only question is what, if anything, comes after this. Based on people like you being fucking enablers, we get the Living Hell, and if that is the case, I do not care what happens to the world and the best thing for me is to go out unrepentant for everything. If however there is something at all to live for, then perhaps something I write would be meaningful, or something others would write is meaningful. The thing that won't be meaningful are these dumb FAGS who make excuses for what has been done to the world, all so they can feel smug and kick down the people trying to keep us alive.

>>2400224
Yes, unironically a third of the US population is no longer with us. The 330M count includes a ridiculous number of old people who are already dead and a questionable number of illegal immigrants who are never counted properly and whose numbers have always been overestimated. Just overcounting would lead to 20-30M extra persons for the "population bomb". The ruling ideas are singularly obsessed with carrying out this eugenics and depopulation project. They do not believe in anything else. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANYTHING ELSE. Get that through your thick skulls if nothing else.

Remember that the Deagel forecast put US population at ~100M at the end of the current democide, by 2025. I don't think it will be that bad, because recent policies "curbed" it by preceding it with a directed democide wiping out ~5-10M of the poorest.

I don't know how anyone can look at the present world and think any of this is "normal". We live in a democide. This is life now.

>>2399731
> the proletariat is the only class which has historic interest in overthrowing capitalism. other classes can still live of the surplus created by the proletariat.
True but anon was pointing out that previous modes of production were abolished not by the class with the historic interest in overthrowing them but by the middle strata living off surplus labor, or rather, more likely, by blind macroeconomic historical-material forces fueled by but not directly acting upon the interests of any one class but rather all the classes in tandem.

>>2400228
>>2400164
>>2400214
Kojims-San, we live in Death Stranding?

>>2400236
No mode of production is "abolished" in that sense. The hallmarks of feudalism still exist in capitalism. When the French revolutionaries are "abolishing feudalism" this only happens with a lot of qualifications and it is interpreted as "we're getting rid of the old ways and beginning the age of liberty and Reason". They didn't believe in "ideological capitalism" as such, nor were they married to any such idea. The thing that was valued as the future quality worth pursuing was industry and technology, science and knowledge, rather than a belief about economic systems (which feudalism was not understood as). In some sense, it was a motion to allow democratization to continue, rather than a naked coup of a middle class for its own sake that announced its tyranny beforehand and insisted this was the only possible meaning of "equality". The people at the time were far more in line with "socialistic" thinking than the narrative theory of history allows them to be, even though there wasn't an idea called socialism (which started, amazingly enough, as a conservative response to liberalism).

>>2398551
>Are the industrial proletariat no longer the revolutionary class?
no they just lost. its barbarism now
>>2399352
>China has developed autonomous mining extraction
thats communism
>>2399470
>he treats all previous modes of production as being overthrown by some middle strata
proles are below lumpen and slaves?
>>2399504
>just a deflection
its not a deflection. it hasn't happened yet. if the capitalists get full automation communism loses. if communists get it first then the struggle continues. marx never said communism was inevitable.

why u think they are testing ai targeting and other new tech in palestine before they ship it to minneapolis. if they start slaughtering surplus population that proves marx right no brain broke about it

>>2399559
>No I have
if u actually see it you would know its just assisted labor and not really automatic. it is a big deal but its not more of a relative big deal than the steam engine. also the capitalist version of it is shit they have been trying for decades and its only applicable in specific repeatable tasks and still breaks down constantly

>>2399593
you got five examples of china and one example that copies amazon robot assisted stocking that relies entirely on human input. the people telling you its not possible under capitalism because its not profitable are correct

>>2399902
correct

>>2400069
>Land is the oldest kind of capital.
productive land(aka means of production). a house is not productive

File: 1753285734729.png (1.02 MB, 1200x630, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2400228
Sources cited:

the bourgeoisie is still the revolutionary class

>>2400755
If they can continue to develop the means of production why not? The problem is they're not fully dedicated to it and allow stagnation to occur.

>>2400827
They don't just "allow" it, they explicitly cause the stagnation and destruction of the productive and developmental forces.

Listen from 3:00 to 14:10

Yanis Varoufakis' Techno Feudalism might be useful here

>>2400305
>proles are below lumpen and slaves?

you neither read that post nor looked at the image

>>2399433
The abolishment of the proletariat in the Landian sense (i.e. hyperautomation or automation of high skill & professional work) would lead to an incredible increase of the lumpen population, which would include former proletarian and petit bourgeois populations. With the prole and p-bourg demos excised from their previous place in society, profits would fall dramatically.

I can't see the outcome of this being beneficial for the bourgeois neo-lords, as it would galvanise that population to band together on a class basis. It would be a new French Revolution, with mass executions of capitalists unless the bourgeoisie truly had a panopticon thru the internet. Even that theoretical panopticon would get bogged down just with the sheer number of dissidents.

Even then, the objective mass of people that would be displaced from their spot on the assembly line of commerce would be so great that it would be interesting to see what porky would do in that situation.

File: 1753329610286.png (397.32 KB, 1040x1171, ClipboardImage.png)


File: 1753333389790.jpg (261.12 KB, 1920x1080, Contrapoints.jpg)

>Are the industrial proletariat no longer the revolutionary class?

They really look in the mirror, see this, and then blame the proletariat for their failing leadership. They have become weaponized lumpen at this point and they need to be purged.

>My thesis is that the majority of the current workers are in the sphere of services and that the revolutionary subject may be IT workers, programmers, generally technicians and scientists which can understand the machinery and affect it. Machinery has already enveloped most of society, so any change that comes upon it will affect it and whoever can affect it can take control of the social order.


See this deep ideological commitment to construct a cubicle wall between "dirty hands workers" and "clean hands workers." There is nothing else to this post. It is just an American conceit and formalization that a prole who uses a keyboard instead of a wrench is actually not a prole. There are currently more industrial workers working now than at any other point in human history. The deindustrialization of your Western country doesn't matter to global proletarian revolution.

I can't believe a simple rhetorical "divide & conquer" post is getting this many replies.

File: 1753337050884.png (2.07 MB, 2224x1668, IMG_0267.png)

>>2400125
>>2400154
>>2400164
>>2400214
>>2400218
>>2400223
>>2400228
>>2400233
>>2400249
Hello Comrade Eugene, I don’t agree with all of your ideas, but I have always found you to give an insightful and unique perspective which makes this website more interesting (Echo chambers are extremely boring), but on a much more important note, since it seems that your predictions are rapidly becoming a reality, especially since the Biden disaster and the second Trump administration outright transforming the U$ into a full-blown Fascist Police State with obvious Eugenic undertones (The “Big Beautiful Bill” gutting the last remnants of the U$ Social Safety Net, the SCOTUS being on the verge of ending U$ Birthright Citizenship, thus making it that anyone who cannot prove that everyone of their ancestors had all of their Immigration “papers” will be stripped of their U$ Citizenship, with this potentially affecting all but the Wealthiest U$ Citizens, the fact that Trump is currently building Concentration Camps using the convenient excuse of “Illegal Immigration”, but soon to be expanded to anyone deemed “undesirable’”, with undocumented immigrants simply being the initial test case, and the fact that they are openly discussing using the “Insurrection Act” to declare Martial Law and suspend all future Elections, all irrefutably point in this direction), I want to ask you a very important question, do you think that this Global Eugenic Depopulation Project will continue to be the largely gradual process that it has been up to this point, largely relying on the 4th Industrial Revolution Automating most of the Workforce, thus making the Proles redundant, which combined with the emerging Fascist State I just described, the Proles will be slowly starved to death while the High-Tech Fascist Police State Panopticon stops them from effectively fighting back, or do you think this will escalate into an climatic inflection point where the International Haute Bourgeoisie that control the Global Capitalist-Imperialist System, will decide to launch a final Inter-Imperialist World War, the Third World War between the U$ and China, which will purposefully be escalated into a Global Nuclear War in order to quickly complete the Global Eugenic Depopulation Project, and presumably wipe out the Proles Worldwide, so the International Haute Bourgeoisie can eventually emerge from their High-Tech Bunkers and have the World to themselves and attempt to achieve Immortality through Transhumanism, thus merging themselves with the “AI” they are so obsessed with (this Cringey Hollywood Sci-Fi Transhumanist “AI Singularity” crap, where the International Haute Bourgeoisie merge themselves with Machines in order to achieve “Immortality”, is their final objective in both “Global Eugenic Depopulation Scenarios” once the Proles are wiped out), as the reason I ask this important question is that in my humble opinion (Informed by the Immortal Science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the Highest Stage of Marxism), the previous “Slow Global Eugenic Depopulation” scenario which relies purely on the 4th Industrial Revolution and a High-Tech Fascist Police State Panopticon, is actually much worse for the Workers and Oppressed Nations of the World, as they will have no realistic way to wage a World Maoist PPW to create a future Global USSR, while in the second “Rapid Global Eugenic Depopulation” Scenario that involves World War III between the U$ and China escalating into a Global Nuclear War, I strongly suspect that the plans of the International Haute Bourgeoisie to ride out the apocalypse they initiated in their Faggy little High-tech Fuhrer Bunkers, will spectacularly Fail for obvious reasons, and that this will destroy the entire Global Capitalist-Imperialist System, thus allowing for a World Maoist PPW to create a Global USSR (The SSRs and SFSRs of the Global USSR are shown in the map I posted, and I plan on posting an improved version of this Map by in the near future, which will finally divide Sub-Saharan Africa into an appropriate number of SSRs based on its Ethno-Linguistic demographics, which I have been thoroughly researching over the last couple months) that will place the Workers and Oppressed Nations of the World on the Shining Path to Communism, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️🤔?

>>2400305
> productive land(aka means of production). a house is not productive
Try building a factory without land to put it on.

>>2401572
>Try building a factory without land to put it on.
land without a means of production is still unproductive. a farm is productive, an unimproved plot is not. land itself does not produce profit. this is pretty basic stuff.

>>2401487
>you neither read that post nor looked at the image
but proles are in the middle strata. the point of the post was that they erroneously think they are not

>>2401509
>would lead to an incredible increase of the lumpen population
And the declassed in general!

>>2401543
>The deindustrialization of your Western country doesn't matter to global proletarian revolution.
Are you implying China isn't going through automation?

>>2401574
> land without a means of production is still unproductive. a farm is productive, an unimproved plot is not. land itself does not produce profit. this is pretty basic stuff.

Land has differential rent due to its proximity to industry. Land in the center of the city is more valuable than land out in the suburbs. A factory closer to workers and other factories is more valuable than a factory in the middle of nowhere.

>>2402317
rent isn't profit

>>2399294
>ENGELS - Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. MARX - Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

I have no words for this. You quite literally have to be a cretin to think these definitions contradict one another.

>>2402326
Landlording is a small business and the tenement hall is the means of production. You're just overcomplicating matters.

>>2402430
They give two different definitions describing the same thing, whereas Engels' definition only focuses on the proletariat, as if the communist movement only exists for the proletariat regardless of if its status changes.

>>2402619
They only compliment each other as long as the proletariat is the revolutionary subject. Who's to say that is forever and ever without end besides utopians who believe all life and existence will have "workers" especially life in advanced society.

>>2402601
a house you live in is not landlording.

>>2402625
>They only compliment each other as long as the proletariat is the revolutionary subject.
This is just an example of Marx making an abstract universal statement and Engels using a concrete particular example to explain it. Engels is only wrong if you interpret him dogmatically.

>>2402813
All homeowners are landlords, if you make money while you sleep based on the appreciation in value of your private property then you are a landlord. Besides the value is proportional to the profit a landlord could make anyhow.

>>2402816
marx's statement is of extremely limited utility. A great deal of situations would "Abolish the present state of things" that "result from the premesis now in existence". It can and has been used to provide the most useless critiques possible

>>2402847
>all homeowners
most "homeowners" dont actually own their home, they are debtors with mortgages. its closer to being a serf than a capitalist.
>the profit a landlord
rent, not profit. a person who owns the home does not exploit a worker by appropriating their surplus value. rent is parasitic, not productive, it appropriates value from productive labor. for the average homeowner appreciation goes to the bank, the real landlord, not the person occupying it.

>>2402859
If you don't own a home then you're not a homeowner 🙄.

All capital is parasitic. Landlords and homeowners are not more or less leeches than other capitalists.

>>2402863
>If you don't own a home then you're not a homeowner
then why are you talking about it as if its something relevant? most workers are not homeowners

>All capital is parasitic

wrong, only monopoly rent is parasitic. capital is exploitative and contradictory but it is also productive. and house that you live in is not capital. a second house that you rent would be, but it wouldn't still wouldn't be productive or a source of profit. it would be a source of rent that transfers value created from labor nearby, by the surrounding businesses schools industry etc, which is why it is parasitic, because land and rent do not create value, labor does.

>>2399611
>increased automation is only a problem for capitalism.
>>2401543
>a prole who uses a keyboard instead of a wrench is actually not a prole
Marxism is about praxis, not mere analysis!
The proletariat has the ability to deny labor, where a neoliberal technocracy subject is a computerized cog in the machine that can be easily replaced if they make any noise. Just look at how the Jeffrey Epstein class of PMC in Silicon Valley have been radicalized simply because their workers wanted basic rights and dignity.

https://nitter.net/mer__edith/status/1661749942967230464
>I connect Charles Babbage & his 19th c. blueprints for digital computation to industrial labor control & the creation of a regime of denigrated, disciplined "free" labor. All of which has its roots in plantation slavery.
> Labor division, worker surveillance & record keeping are techniques that emerged on plantations as ways to extract as much labor from enslaved workers as possible. Well before they were deployed in industrial factories.
> Babbage was both the early co-designer of digital computing & an influential theorist of labor discipline. Both Babbage's "engines" & his labor theories repackage, expand on, and encode plantation techniques, particularly labor division and worker surveillance.
> With this in mind, we can understand Babbage's work in total as striving to maintain British empire–itself reliant on the industrial mass-production–in the face of the 1833 abolition of West Indian slavery & sustained worker uprising in Britain.
> How to get workers to shut up & produce was the question. Applying plantation techniques of labor discipline & control, modified a white British workforce, can be seen as Babbage's answer. An answer he provided in the form of his computational designs and in his labor theories.
> This is not a thin connection. His "engines" were shaped to directly encode templates for labor division, and were themselves tools for worker automation & surveillance, whose architectures assumed they would be applied in contexts of a divided, rationalized workplace.

you have nothing to lose but your chains fully owned house, mortgage, etc lol

>>2403151
>Marxism is about praxis, not mere analysis!
youre thinking of communism

File: 1753456343818.jpg (21.75 KB, 474x296, ok.jpg)

>owning a house is like uhhh being a landlord (im too retarded to make the simple argument that owning a house is literally property and can be sold to maintain your reserves in times of crisis and what you choose to do is of little importance than the mere fact you own it)
<ermmmm NO owning a house doesnt make you middle class because (complete lack of understanding of what "relation to capital" entails)

only on leftoidpol can BOTH SIDES BE RETARDED

this shithole hasnt bothered reading even the housing question. its literally 2 or 3 chapters long lmfao

>>2403163
so, do we get to own property under communism?

>>2403164
>"property" as some universal transhistorical definition
midwit alert

>>2403167
is that a yes or no?
why cant you answer simple questions?

>>2403169
>lets rehash the retarded and completely irrelevant le personal vs le private le property argument for the nth time like a good little leftoid
why cant you read something a bit more dense than a tweet or imageboard post

>>2403171
here's a simple algorithm to help you:
(1) can you own property under communism?
yes/no
(2) if yes, can you own housing property?
yes/no
(3) if yes, can you sell housing property?
yes/no
(4) if no, then you dont actually own your property
(5) if yes, then you can own a house in communism
[sequence complete]

>>2403171
I'm not hearing a yes or no. sounds like you have no argument.

>>2403179
see >>>/leftypol/2403167
the precondition for your "algorithm" is a definition of property, which depends on the historical context. for example, property right now means something different than it did last year when some laws were different. it is a pointless question because we can't assume what the definition of property would be under socialism

>>2403198
>the precondition for your "algorithm" is a definition of property
property is defined as something which has direct personal ownership over it. to possess something is to hold it as property and thus to have rights over it.
but keep avoiding basic questions anyway, coward.

>>2403164
Your things will be use values and your existence will be a use value for the productive forces and YOU VILL BE CALCULATED

File: 1753459669951.jpg (288.8 KB, 1017x1011, 8t3jtc.jpg)

>>2403229
what if i trade my house for another's, since we find mutual usefulness in this act? what if i want to trade my house for £300k and the other party accepts?

>>2403222
>property is defined as <personal opinion>
the definition that matters in the real world is the one that can be enforced and is usually codified in laws
your definition of property is a bunch of buzzwords and sucks, btw

File: 1753460466365.jpg (34.01 KB, 580x522, 1742997410329170.jpg)

>>2399187
>ameriburger forgets other countires exists for the millionth time

>>2403249
my definition of property is the legal definition:
an object for which personal rights of ownership are reserved for. following from this, theft, destruction or harm of one's property can be inferred, for which, legal action is eligible.
but just keep deflecting and sageposting like a faggot. you want communism but dont even know what communism is. truly, a great mind. cant answer basic questions and is too scared to bump the thread. 🤣

>>2401543
TRVTHNUKE

>>2401888
automatation is literally industrialization you retard


>>2399639
never read marx award

>>2403258
>legal definition
for what country? on what year? if different countries have different laws regarding taxes for example, it necessarily means that they have a different definition. if the same country has different taxes now than it did in the past, or than it will in the future, it means that the definition is a historical development. if the axioms and the rules were the same the subsequent elaborations and conclusions would be the same

you seem to be under the impression that communists have a blueprint for a future utopia and the communist theory is just arguments on how that utopia should be. it is not, communism since marx means analyzing the material reality it's historical development. the end goal as a political movement is the abolition of wage labor, and the strategy and the actual policies are always dependent on the circumstances at the moment

this is the case for any relevant political movement, no one has a set of prescriptions written in stone that they would carry out in the hypothetical case that they had absolute authority, because it is a counterfactual hypothetical and it would be a waste of time. this is, making preparations for a situation that is both improbable and unrealistically distant

>>2403272
>taxes change the legal definition of property
no they dont. your rightful property is whatever you own. in every society, people have established private ownership, therefore, property is a social constant.
>you seem to be under the assumption that communists actually have a plan
right, my apologies
>i am a communist but i dont know what communism is
typical nonsense 😴

>>2399639
the machine itself is the result of labor and maybe natural resources. if the same amount of labor, even accounting for the production costs of the machine, now produces more products than it did in the past, then it is said that the machine has increased productivity. this is, it has increased the outputs obtained from the inputs

>>2403286
>no they dont
negation is not an argument. thank you for the w

>>2403289
>negation is not an argument
i provide a positive counter-argument in case you cant read beyond 3 words. property is whatever people own. people have always established ownership; therefore, property is a constant.

>you seem to be under the assumption that communists actually have a plan
read the post again or quote the actual text, because your summary is wrong: communist parties have plans for their circumstances and what is actionable in their present circumstances, be it in the short or the long term, as is the case with any other political movement. there is not is an utopian blueprint because such a thing would be a waste of time

>>2403292
which is merely a reiteration of something that I already refuted here >>>/leftypol/2403249
read the conversation again and reply when you feel ready to address the points being made

>>2403293
talking to yourself? 🤣😴
>communist parties have plans for their circumstances and what is actionable in their present circumstances, be it in the short or the long term
right - in the short term, will people be able to own their own houses; how about long term?

>>2403298
>refuted
your definition of property is legal
so is mine
you have refuted nothing, which is why you are evading me with sageposts

File: 1753462704723.png (3.38 MB, 1300x1012, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2403238
Trade is forbidden and punished by flailing with a fasces

>>2403307
right, so personal ownership is prohibited under communism. only the state reserves the right over property. we will all be tenants of the state.

>>2403302
I'm sageposting because this is either babyfirst thinking about politics or trolling

>your definition of property is legal

>so is mine
your "definition" is an imaginary concept, you call it legal because maybe it is used to explain to people the logic behind some legal decisions. when I say legal definition I mean the entire corpus of the law regulating property, from land regulation, water rights, national sovereignty, taxes, etc. etc. your definition, being imaginary, isn't perfectly embodies by any particular legislation - ask yourself why. therefore, it isn't an observation of an objective reality, but a generalization to simplify a complex and constantly changing social construct

>>2403312
>constantly changing social construct
a construct which has a singular precept; personal ownership. but since my definition of property is inadequate, lets hear yours.

and the only reason I focus on legislation is because most of the world has some sort of public force and thus it can enforce property as defined by it

>>2403321
define "property"

>>2403310
yea an elite assigned periodically from selected people by the previous elite will manage society under the administration of things, there will be no more "presidents" and "mayors" and "boss" and "mom' and "dad" and "wife" there will only be administrators managing all elements of society and through merit you might be selected to become one

>>2403316
read the post you are replying to
<when I say legal definition I mean the entire corpus of the law regulating property, from land regulation, water rights, national sovereignty, taxes, etc. etc.
and then >>>/leftypol/2403321
in short, property is only relevant and only exists to the extent and shape it can be enforced, which in most of the world right now means legislation

>>2403324
>meritocracy
what happens to the unmeritable?
>>2403325
define "property"

>>2403327
>what happens to the unmeritable?
he who does not work neither shall he eat
he who is against work shall eat the poop of society until botulism - KARL LENIN 30907 A.C.

>>2403332
so disabled people will be starved to death?

>>2403333
No they will be eaten

>>2402856
What Marx meant was vidrel

>>2403327
>define "property"
read the following posts:
>>>/leftypol/2403249
>>>/leftypol/2403272
>>>/leftypol/2403312
there is no abstract "it means to have something" because in reality it only exists when and how it is enforced

File: 1753464257645.png (948.39 KB, 1643x642, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2403349
Btw forgot flag
long live 420chan I POSTED THIS, I, A 420CHANNER

>>2403351
>>>/leftypol/2403249
>the definition that matters in the real world is the one that can be enforced and is usually codified in laws
>>>/leftypol/2403272
>for what country? on what year?
>>>/leftypol/2403312
>when I say legal definition I mean the entire corpus of the law regulating property
so you dont actually define it. so pathetic.
but lets read that last statement again:
>the entire corpus of the law regulating property
"property" here is not the law itself, but something put under subjection of the law - so the law for property and property are different things by your own admission. what then, is property?

The real movement which abolishes the present state of things means THE STORY NEVER ENDS AND PERMANENT REVOLUTION FOR SURE

>>2403359
nothing is sadder than a midwit trying to do le socrates act badly and constantly asking gibberish

this, of course, conditions and shapes the concept of "having" in the first place. a person with a house in peru means something different when they claim to have a house than a person that has a house in the central african republic. why? because one may be inalienable by law and the other may be subjected to eminent domain if the government can prove it needs it. one may be inheritable and the other not, etc. etc.

>>2403256
>implying its easier to become an educated professional outside of developed countries
that applies more to your post than theirs lol

>>2403366
>a homeowner in X country magically has different class interests than a homeowner in Y country
lol

>because one may be inalienable by law and the other may be subjected to eminent domain if the government can prove it needs it. one may be inheritable and the other not, etc. etc.

this is irrelevant to the fact someone who owns a house wont risk losing it unlike the proletariat who has by definition nothing to lose :)

>>2403369
>a homeowner in X country magically has different class interests than a homeowner in Y country
>lol
its cuz they got their class analysis from intersectional classes and believe it fluid like gender birds migrating continents

>>2403310
>aieeeeee the NWO is coming for my petty property!!
the proletariat already owns nothing :)

File: 1753464782268.jpg (1.33 MB, 2394x1632, 01-AP_271041288910.jpg)

>>2403365
>constantly asking gibberish
here's my "gibberish" question:
what is property?
the dictionary has a definition, should i use that?
>(1) that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner.
>(2) goods, land, etc., considered as possessions.
>(3) a piece of land or real estate.
>(4) ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, especially of something tangible.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/property
is the dictionary wrong?

>>2403377
You should be asking what is capital, cause half the retards on here don't realize capital refers to resources and wealth is just an attribute that persists out of the value form rather than calculation of scarcity and distribution.

>>2403359
>here is not the law itself
read the last part of the post you are replying to but decided not to quote:
<there is no abstract "it means to have something" because in reality it only exists when and how it is enforced
and then >>>/leftypol/2403366
your garbage definition that you call "legal" boils down to precisely that, having something. I point out that the concept itself that you take as universal is actually particular to circumstances and that yes, property is one of the things the law as a whole defines because it defines the concept of having to begin with through it's enforcement. from where did this law arise? there is no seminal, universal concept behind it, only historical development


>>2403379
>cockshott faggot calling other retards
why do you call yourselves marxists when youre just milquetoast political economists (the primo thing marx was critiquing)

>>2403381
>your garbage definition that you call "legal" boils down to precisely that, having something
that is the entire legal definition
>i point out that the concept itself that you take as universal
it is a universal concept. name a society that had no property in it.
>>2403382
is the dictionary wrong?

>>2403387
see >>>/leftypol/2403198
follow the conversation to the point where you give up on your definition, ask me what's mine and, unable to find any gotcha, give up and loop back to something that has already been discussed

>>2403395
where do i give up on my definition?
i provide it. you dispute it.
so i ask for an alternative, which you fail to provide.
remember when you said that negation isnt an argument?
you also cant give me any historical example where property didnt exist, so it proves itself to be a universal concept, defined by personal ownership. the dictionary agrees with me. is the dictionary wrong?

File: 1753465731467.jpg (66.7 KB, 679x458, 1746474931058.jpg)

The continued use of the term ownership by retards reflects a lingering attachment to the concept of property and its associated social relations. This is why they mistakenly equate communism with merely transferring ownership from capitalists to workers. However, such a transfer, if it preserves the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, would still constitute a form of capitalism albeit administered by workers rather than capitalists.

It's not a terminology problem, just their petit-bourgeois mindset showing they see communism like that. Ownership is a social relation that's literally what communism aims to abolish. There's not going to be property under communism. Workers as a class won't even exist anymore.

>>2403404
>having property is capitalist
property predates capitalism by milennia

>>2403406
>capitalist social relations existed before capitalism
You are genuinely braindead.

>>2403377
try reading actual books on communism instead of just googling random definitions broski

>>2403402
>where do i give up on my definition?
<i provide it. you dispute it.
unable to refute my criticism, you decide instead to
>so i ask for an alternative
but curiously, you then claim
>which you fail to provide
now notice that when you replied to >>>/leftypol/2403381 you didn't refute the definition, but instead tried to pedal back to your original one that had already been discarded. not out of any internal inconsistency or incompatibility with reality on my part, but because you found yourself against a wall

File: 1753465959113.png (22.19 KB, 1630x138, ClipboardImage.png)


>>2403408
is owning a house a capitalist social relation?
>>2403411
what book should i read to know the definition of property?

>>2403414
>notice that when you replied to >>>/leftypol/2403381 you didn't refute the definition
my own definition? why would i?
also, you havent given historical sources of propertyless societies yet, proving how property is a universal concept, defined by personal ownership.

>>2403430
is that a yes or no?

>>2403438
dont do what? own a house?

>>2403310
>communism
>state

>>2403423
>you havent given historical sources of propertyless societies yet
I don't have to: if I can own a plot of land thousands of kilometers away from my current location, I wouldn't be able to do that if there wasn't a state to enforce my claim. therefore if I know the current state hasn't always been there, or hasn't always been the same as it is now, I know my claim isn't universal but merely a product of the current circumstances

as a side note, notice how funny your wording is
>historical sources
means after the invention of writing, as if humans hadn't existed before that. there could be prehistorical sources, like archaeologic evidence - except of course it would be hard to find remains of the presence, absence, or specific nature of a concept of property because it isn't something material. by looking for a gotcha you are evidencing it's social character

>>2403445
>I don't have to
right; you dont have to provide evidence for your counterfactual position (that property isnt universal), but that only makes your claims spurious.
>if I can own a plot of land thousands of kilometers away from my current location, I wouldn't be able to do that if there wasn't a state to enforce my claim.
this is where property rights come in. property rights can be defined as the legitimacy to the claim of property - so if i say that i own buckingham palace, this is illegitimate. ownership then depends on the agreement of certain claims, i agree, but even so, a state does not need to enforce them, since we also have a social contract which assigns property.
>by looking for a gotcha you are evidencing it's social character
where do i imply that property exists outside of society? property denotes a social relationship within its own terms.
>>2403443
communism is when the state controls everything, no?

File: 1753467622519.mp4 (2.04 MB, 1280x720, videoplayback.mp4)

>how it feels to be real and authentic communists on leftypol.org

>>2403459
>breaking the phrase into disconnected chunks to avoid addressing the point being made
next time just quote letter by letter, randomly skip a few, and claim I'm just posting gibberish
<I don't have to: if I can own a plot of land thousands of kilometers away from my current location, I wouldn't be able to do that if there wasn't a state to enforce my claim. therefore if I know the current state hasn't always been there, or hasn't always been the same as it is now, I know my claim isn't universal but merely a product of the current circumstances

>universal

>social relation
see >>>/leftypol/2403312 the only way it could be "universal" is by being a broad generalization of different social relations - and not the social relations themselves

>>2403468
>the state wasnt always there
right, but property will still exist even if the state disappears tomorrow, since people will respect the notion of ownership. now, not all ownership will be respected, but a lot of it will.
>the only way it could be "universal" is by being a broad generalization of different social relations - and not the social relations themselves
this is where you are confused between the universal and the particular - if i talk about an abstract concept like "family", it has a general meaning, but also specific meanings as well. both can exist at the same time. if i talk about property - there is the universal concept, then the particular forms. i am saying that the generalisation has always existed, which is still a transhistorical social relation, just like the family.

>>2403459
>communism is when the state controls everything, no?
in marxist theory communism is a society where there is no class conflict and thus no need for a state
the countries where communists govern are called socialist. for example, the bolsheviks considered themselves communists and the soviet union a socialist country

>>2403476
>not all
bro just conceded

>>2403480
so its socialism where the state controls everything?
>conceded
on what? if there was anarchy, rich people would be robbed, which is my meaning, since their property would appear to be illegitimate by the standards of the social contract.

File: 1753469272730.png (166.95 KB, 850x400, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2403480
>in marxist theory communism is a society where there is no class conflict and thus no need for a state
<pic
"No class conflict", lmao, class is abolished. The government is replaced by the administration of things.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm

>>2403485
you conceded on the universal. as you seemed to understand in your previous post, you only need a single counterexample to disprove a universal. it is all or nothing

>so its socialism where the state controls everything?

socialism is when the working class has more political power than the capitalist class. usually when communist govern they claim this to be the case. taking the soviet union as an example again, you had policies like the NEP where the government allowed and incentivized private ownership of factories and businesses. it was socialism because capital didn't directly translate into political power, this is, the government would continue to pursue a communist project instead of just acquiescing to lobbies, bribes, and all the other mechanisms that allow capital to dictate policies

on the other hand, you have fascist italy where the state, through it's "Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale" was the nominal owner of most of the industrial sectors in the country (capitalists could buy "IRI bonds" and receive dividends). it still wasn't a socialist by the marxist criteria because political power was still overwhelmingly in the hands of the upper classes

>>2403517
>you conceded on the universal
no, i am affirming the universal in place of the particular. property will always exist, but not all kinds of property, since it is deemed illegitimate.
>socialism is when the working class has more political power than the capitalist class
in a democracy, dont the workers' votes outnumber the capitalists'?


Unique IPs: 74

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ 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 ]