/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

There need to be more totalitarian approaches to politecon, you cannot stay just economists, you need some revolutionary vigeur.

>>2501182
>jevons does comment on overproduction but only slightly. he makes no special place for it since to him, commodities equate at their marginal utilities and it would be contradictory to insist that a person would be motivated by inducing disutility (pain/loss) due to his axiom that men operate by the drive for pleasure.

But a crisis of overproduction isn't a personal choice. It's a social outcome resulting from competition between several firms to sell at lower and lower prices by producing commodities faster and faster through the introduction of more and more automation.

Its gonna be interesting to see how China responds to declining rate of profit. So far they haven't done anything novel that this or that capitalist state hasn't done in the past.

In a recent party meeting, they talked about "involution" or excessive race-to-the-bottom competition as causing declining profits and therefore hurting long term competitiveness, wages, employment etc. They called for more consolidation, letting uncompetitive firms die, and "quality competition".

How is class struggle supposed to happen in countries where the service sector is the biggest employer?

Is this thread still alive? because the previous one looked like it was just 1 poster

>>2507179
A wave of AI layoffs will give the tertiary sector their first taste of class consciousness.

>>2507186
Once you’re laid off you’re lumpen and now have reactionary interests, doubly so since you were labor aristocracy first.

>>2507189
TRVKE
Nothing good ever "just happens". Commies have to get off their ass and make good things happen. Otherwise the bad stuff just leads to more bad stuff.

>>2507186
I wasn’t even really thinking of the first world tech sector, I am thinking of places like Cape Verde or Jamaica where the only actual work is either directly serving tourists or selling trinkets to tourists

>>2507189
also see post related

>>2507176
>So far they haven't done anything novel that this or that capitalist state hasn't done in the past.
pic related

>>2507179
Bourgeois dictatorships with dominant service sector are always the greatest imperialist. Therefore the precondition for revolution in these countries is for third world to rise up and destroy the imperialist economic basis upon which what the imperialists call "service workers" subsist.

Stalinist proletarian political economic textbook explains the inextricable link between what the bourgeoisie calls "services" and imperialism. As imperialism develop, unproductive "services" and FIRE takes forefront role in economy. This lack of productive development leads to degeneration of imperialist econonomy.
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch20.htm
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch15.htm

>>2507147
well, these threads are presumably for the study or discussion of political economy, so it shouldnt be surprising when people discuss political economy…
>>2507168
jevons is still operating under say's law of the market:
<supply creates its own demand
>>2507165
in a totalitarian context (state monopoly) there is no more political economy (in the marxian sense), but only the directives of production and consumption. stalin also says here that in the case of full state ownership, all commodity production will cease:
>Elsewhere in Anti-Duhring Engels speaks of mastering "all the means of production," of taking possession of "all means of production." Hence, in this formula Engels has in mind the nationalization not of part, but of all the means of production, that is, the conversion into public property of the means of production not only of industry, but also of agriculture. It follows from this that Engels has in mind countries where capitalism and the concentration of production have advanced far enough both in industry and in agriculture to permit the expropriation of all the means of production in the country and their conversion into public property. Engels, consequently, considers that in such countries, parallel with the socialization of all the means of production, commodity production should be put an end to. And that, of course, is correct.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch03.htm

>>2507152
as i have demonstrated, there is literally no difference between men and machines in production except that men get paid a wage. similarly, to marx, slaves cannot produce, but only transfer value, because they are treated as property rather than as property-owners, while a worker is just a slave with a wage; a wage-slave:
>In slave labour, even that part of the working-day in which the slave is only replacing the value of his own means of existence, in which, therefore, in fact, he works for himself alone, appears as labour for his master. All the slave’s labour appears as unpaid labour. In wage labour, on the contrary, even surplus-labour, or unpaid labour, appears as paid. There the property-relation conceals the labour of the slave for himself; here the money-relation conceals the unrequited labour of the wage labourer.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
we also see the wage configure labour as a rented product rather than a wholly bought product:
<The continuance of this relation demands that the owner of the labour-power should sell it only for a definite period, for if he were to sell it rump and stump, once for all, he would be selling himself, converting himself from a free man into a slave, from an owner of a commodity into a commodity.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
further, this relationship of rent or interest acts as the temporal basis of capitalist exploitation, with the capitalist being a debtor to what is forwarded in credit:
>In all cases, therefore, the use-value of the labour-power is advanced to the capitalist: the labourer allows the buyer to consume it before he receives payment of the price; he everywhere gives credit to the capitalist.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
i have addressed this point before in rebuking austrian economist hans hermann hoppe: >>2460758

to return to the point at hand, marx nowhere in all of his work ever implies that slaves can produce surplus value. here is a good blog post on the topic:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/07/marx-on-slaves-as-fixed-capital.html
yet slaves labour, but as we see, labour has no value:
<Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
to marx, only commodities possess value. thus, a slave (like any form of fixed capital) is a value, but cannot add to itself above its costs. but why? because its costs are not commodified, so do not take the form of value. this is not to imply that slaves are unproductive however, since machines are in themselves more productive than men, yet are said to not be able to produce values. if we take the notion then, that a slave's labour-power *becomes* valuable in the mode of a commodity, then the case is entirely symmetrical to machines. the difference of course is what marx may only consider in terms of the subjectivity of value's contract. lets read:
>In order that these objects may enter into relation with each other as commodities, their guardians must place themselves in relation to one another, as persons whose will resides in those objects, and must behave in such a way that each does not appropriate the commodity of the other, and part with his own, except by means of an act done by mutual consent. They must therefore, mutually recognise in each other the rights of private proprietors. This juridical relation, which thus expresses itself in a contract, whether such contract be part of a developed legal system or not, is a relation between two wills, and is but the reflex of the real economic relation between the two. It is this economic relation that determines the subject-matter comprised in each such juridical act. 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch02.htm
<The historical conditions of its existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It can spring into life, only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the free labourer selling his labour-power. And this one historical condition comprises a world’s history.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
<That which comes directly face to face with the possessor of money on the market, is in fact not labour, but the labourer. What the latter sells is his labour-power.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
so then, value only appears within these *subjective* circumstances to marx, where value is "mutually recognised" (a la hegel) in its possibility of equivalence. the slave does not produce value, even with a wage fund, because he does not yet own himself, so as to sell himself. thus, there is zero qualitative difference between the instruments of production (since all labour is abstracted as investment capital), and all difference only exists in the realm of circulation, or exchange.

if we rightfully treat machines as slaves then, the possibility of granting them a wage would entail the value of their costs of repair; the same as an animal. marx fails to be consistent with his own theory in this regard then (in what smith and menger see as labour being "commanded") and he instead metaphysicalises human labour as a magical substance. it is one of marx's worst passages (criticised by cockshott as well). i deal with the topic of abstraction fully here: >>2488766
>Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate […] We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human […] We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal […] A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm
this subjective element of "imagination" of course is immaterial to the process of production, as much as smith in the same way dismisses the labour of superintendence as adding to the exchange-value of commodities. here then, marx in assigning the uniqueness of man's labour fails. man is not unique, as he has previously admitted. lets read the grundrisse:
>The worker’s activity, reduced to a mere abstraction of activity, is determined and regulated on all sides by the movement of the machinery, and not the opposite. The science which compels the inanimate limbs of the machinery, by their construction, to act purposefully, as an automaton, does not exist in the worker’s consciousness, but rather acts upon him through the machine as an alien power, as the power of the machine itself.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch13.htm
he even says quite clearly here that man's consciousness is no object to the ends of production. value then, is not a relation within production, but only something in exchange, where labour is abstracted:
>the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value […] there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract […] When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
this is not a material relation, but purely social:
>The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition […] the value of commodities has a purely social reality […] So far no chemist has ever discovered exchange value either in a pearl or a diamond.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
i have spoken of marx's anti-physicalism here:
>>2489516
>>2489518
we may even see marx granting the possibility of "imaginary" value immanent to the price-form (money):
>Objects that in themselves are no commodities, such as conscience, honour, &c., are capable of being offered for sale by their holders, and of thus acquiring, through their price, the form of commodities. Hence an object may have a price without having value. The price in that case is imaginary, like certain quantities in mathematics.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm
if we deduce marx's hegelianism it is rather clear that value is a process of "recognition" between the owners of commodities. it is a subjective process, the same way value is only a value if it has a subjective utility:
>Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
so then, why cant machines produce values? well, first of all they do produce values; values in use, and also values in exchange, just at a diminished rate (due to oversupply). the cost of its labour also equals what can be sold from its implementation, and so machines make money for capitalists, but not profits (this is confirmed by marginalists such as jevons, clark and bawerk). the reason they cant produce SURPLUS values is because theyre not paid a wage, which is because (1) machines cant subjectively receive wages or (2) voluntarily sell their labour. but this is also true for animals, yet animals are alive. machines are similarly a form of life and in many cases, of intelligence, yet they are not economic creatures the same way that we are. so then, marx's theory of value is subjective, and machines are not subjects. that is the most basic interpretation:
>…all the necessary factors of the labour process; its OBJECTIVE factors, the means of production, as well as its SUBJECTIVE factor, labour-power.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm
<That which comes directly face to face with the possessor of money on the market, is in fact not labour, but the labourer. What the latter sells is his labour-power.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
a slave is an object, not a subject. 🤷🏻‍♂️😅🫠

>social construct
marx's theory of value indeed is a theory of social recognition. value is not a natural force or substance:
<The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition […] the value of commodities has a purely social reality […] So far no chemist has ever discovered exchange value either in a pearl or a diamond.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
if it was, you could measure it directly with instruments, like the chemist.

Hello, anons, I'm looking for book that actually explain how a socialist economy would work, I'm know of Cockshott's book, but there's any other book on the economics of socialism beside Cockshott?

>>2507515
Read publications from Communist States, not westoid pseuds.

>>2507563
thank you for this book

>>2507508
>if it was, you could measure it directly with instruments, like the chemist.
Personally, I measure it all the time. I fire any worker who doesn't make me more money per hour than I pay them per hour.

>>2507515
Soviets published a lot of them while they still existed. Ismail has upload quite a few of them online: https://archive.org/details/@ismail_badiou

>>2507856
you can empirically verify production costs
you cant empirically verify "value"

>>2508016
Yes, that is also what I tell the workers when they start to get uppity about "surplus value." I just shrug and I say "that doesn't exist LOL"

>>2508075
thats why youre a successful businessman and not a flailing humanities student or economics professor.

>>2508091
Between you and me? I'm scared. We need to see more unemployment. The wagies are starting to act like I need them more than they need me. That's not good!

>>2508099
maybe if you turn off the tap of welfare they will be coming back a bit more enthusiastically.
>>2508075
>>2508091
also, according to marx, the surplus utility of labour-power as a consumed commodity rightfully belongs to the capitalist who purchased it:
>If the labourer consumes his disposable time for himself, he robs the capitalist […] the consumption of the commodity belongs not to the seller who parts with it, but to the buyer, who acquires it. To you, therefore, belongs the use of my daily labour-power. But by means of the price that you pay for it each day, I must be able to reproduce it daily, and to sell it again […] The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm
<That which comes directly face to face with the possessor of money on the market, is in fact not labour, but the labourer. What the latter sells is his labour-power. As soon as his labour actually begins, it has already ceased to belong to him; it can therefore no longer be sold by him. 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
so then, the wage is the true price of labour-power, but as yet, marx sees that the working day is still variable according to the law of the market, and so is still relative to the rights of the worker as a seller of commodities:
<On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm
so then, in the realm of equal right, the price of labour is constant, but its duration of utility is variable. these are the terms set by the labourer himself as possessor of the commodity, for to charge beyond the wage would be to exploit the capitalist, yet limiting the working day also means a lack of exploitation to the worker:
<I demand the normal working-day because I, like every other seller, demand the value of my commodity. 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm

>>2508103
>maybe if you turn off the tap of welfare they will be coming back a bit more enthusiastically.
I don't want them to be so enthusiastic as to start getting violent

>>2507508
>slaves cannot produce, but only transfer value, because they are treated as property rather than as property-owners
I'm not sure that's accurate.

>>2508218
you appear to lack literacy because i have explained the reason for this in my expanded post. but otherwise, you are free to give a citation of marx considering slave labour capable of producing surplus value. i have searched for it and cannot find any, so the case is clear. you can also read this for brevity's sake:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/07/marx-on-slaves-as-fixed-capital.html

>>2508230
what about horses

>>2508574
Smith anon has made it clear over several threads that he thinks value isn't real but also that the activities of machines, slaves, and livestock produce value just as much as free human labor.

The 70s marxists had it right automation will end the worker identity we onto have idipol left

>>2509035
delusional. every machine requires maintenance, materials, etc. automation is not a magic bullet. robots are not any time soon going to screw in every lightbulb, change every diaper, pave every road, empty every septic tank, pick every fruit, remove every bullet, etc. and a lot of the "AI" shit happening right now is error prone and way more costly and environmentally unsustainable than just feeding and paying a worker to do the same thing.

>>2508574
animals and slaves are both fixed capital to marx:
>The slave-owner buys his labourer as he buys his horse. If he loses his slave, he loses capital that can only be restored by new outlay in the slave-mart.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm
>>2508577
>value doesnt exist
it exists as a social abstraction, not as a natural relation. it is subjective - or in marx's case, a subjectivity:
>The person objectifies himself in production, the thing subjectifies itself in the person
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm
>the relations connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
>free human labour
you mean "wage labour"? i have already explained what undergirds your mysticism of the wage-slave.
>>2507165
peep keynes 👀
>Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of the production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.
https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300071h/gerpref.html

>>2509035
without labour (martyrdom), marxists have no identity, which is why they have jumped from the progress of the first world to the regress of the third world. fascism, i have previously defined as a type of "trade union consciousness" in the words of lenin. its a sorelian heroism attached to the mundanity of labour, as opposed to the decadence of things like "financialisation" which moishe postone sees as the root of fascist antisemitism. its the workerist focus on "productivity" and "earned income". as i have previously cited, silvio gesell was celebrated by national socialist rudolf jung for replacing the idea of industrial profit for usury and interest. gesell himself says that he was chiefly inspired by proudhon, who was a massive antisemite himself. modern advocates of "earned income" like michael hudson focus on the parasitism of the unproductive, and hudson is highly esteemed by contemporary fascists like haz al-din (whose preoccupation is the undermining of service workers by their active dehumanisation, in duginist style). it all imitates the slave morality of early christianity, even as engels himself reports:
>The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers’ socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/
the recent meme of "treatlerism" also shows the idea that having comfort is immoral, and so first world citizens are supposed to whip themselves for this original sin of being the winners of history. remember what was written on the gates of auchwitz:
"Arbeit Macht Frei" ("work will set you free")
so then, this marxist pathology has been sublimated in recent times by fascist third-worldism. the fetish of labour as "value" is what murray rothbard rightfully considers as an unconditional token of legitimacy to the protestant work ethic. if you suffer, youre good. if you leisure, youre evil. thats the unifying concept.

>>2508577
>>2508574
From the first page of the Critique of the Gotha Programme by Karl Marx:

First part of the paragraph: "Labor is the source of all wealth and all culture."

Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. The above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.

Let us now leave the sentence as it stands, or rather limps. What could one have expected in conclusion? Obviously this:

"Since labor is the source of all wealth, no one in society can appropriate wealth except as the product of labor. Therefore, if he himself does not work, he lives by the labor of others and also acquires his culture at the expense of the labor of others."

Instead of this, by means of the verbal river "and since", a proposition is added in order to draw a conclusion from this and not from the first one.

Now do not ask me whether wealth and value are the same, I do not know. Goodbye.

>>2509325

Arbeit Macht Frei is a thoroughly Marxist concept. One must be able to dissociate the meaning of the phrase with the perversion of it by the Nazis.

>>2509336
mask off moment 🤣

>>2509332
wealth, or riches = utility
value = exchange
there is no exchange in marx's "co-operative society", so there is wealth, or riches, without value. ricardo:
>'A MAN is rich or poor,' says Adam Smith, 'according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life.' Value, then, essentially differs from riches, for value depends not on abundance, but on the difficulty or facility of production. The labour of a million of men in manufactures, will always produce the same value, but will not always produce the same riches. By the invention of machinery, by improvements in skill, by a better division of labour, or by the discovery of new markets, where more advantageous exchanges may be made, a million of men may produce double, or treble the amount of riches, of 'necessaries, conveniences, and amusements,' in one state of society, that they could produce in another, but they will not on that account add any thing to value; for every thing rises or falls in value, in proportion to the facility or difficulty of producing it, or, in other words, in proportion to the quantity of labour employed on its production. 
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/ch20.htm

>>2509325
rent, profit, and interest are all exploitative forms of income. you slander hudson and ben norton as antisemitic when they are anti zionists, while zionists are committing a genocide. your concern trolling about antisemitism is irrelevant at this juncture. haz al din is reactionary but he has not given a single interview with hudson as far as i know. hudson is much more closely tied to people like ben norton. haz al din and the ACP are reactioanry because they try to shove a bunch of LGBTphobia and duginism and heidegerrian BS into the anti-imperialist movement to defeat the imperial core rentiers.

>>2509338
‘Labours makes one free’ is literally a valid scientific concept man. Dissociate with the labour camps, and ponder on the phrase on its own. Labour is what made us human in the first place.

>>2509646
>more unironic "Arbeit Macht Frei" apologia
>>2509614
i've never directly accused hudson of antisemitism, its just that reactionaries enjoy hudson. this is not an accident; its in very the form of his rhetoric. waging a war against "parasites" is also rich from an academic, same way graeber wrote "bullshit jobs". the irony is lost on these gentleman, i suppose.
>youre not allowed to talk about antisemitism, while the west is geopolitically scapegoating israel as the root of all evil
nothing bad ever happened before 1948 i guess.
>haz al-din
yes, he is a big fan of michael hudson despite being a "parasite" himself. i suppose its like how fascist lumpens despise the racially lumpenised as an internal class struggle. this is happening in the UK right now:
>i deserve state benefits
<no, i deserve state benefits
etc.
these intellectuals scarcely discuss their own class position and subsequent class interest, which is always suspicious. but as lenin said, the working class are morons and need the clever to manipulate them to proper ends in any case. what is the intellectual's class interest? to be ruler over his servants:
<The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm
but as i say, he's not wholly wrong. fascism is essentially proletarian, which is why i dont put much faith in the proletariat to begin with, and so i dont get as frustrated with the masses as communists do.

>>2509651
Good points but mostly wrong

>>2509325
meanwhile in the third world

>>2509614
if you read his posts before you would know hes a crypto fascist

>>2509651
>i've never directly accused hudson of antisemitism, its just that reactionaries enjoy hudson. this is not an accident; its in very the form of his rhetoric. waging a war against "parasites" is also rich from an academic, same way graeber wrote "bullshit jobs". the irony is lost on these gentleman, i suppose.
keyword directly. I remember complaints (yours? i'm not sure) in previous threads about how hudson is supposedly dog whistling jews when he talks about the IMF/World Bank forced loans taken out by CIA backed compradors that hold the third world hostage, or when he talks about how FIRE sector and software as a service has taken the place of manufacturing commodities in the imperial core.

>>2509325
it's not about 'decadence' of financialisation. It's the speculative and parasitic nature of it.

>>2509664
how? can you provide a refutation? i'm NTA but you can't just say "good points but mostly wrong" without saying how they're "mostly wrong" and why you believe them to be "good"

>>2509726
the whole racial and sin framing is an attempt to distract from the materialist analysis of value creation and distribution to say communists arent materialists and are instead just envious utopian ideologues who want to steal from capitalists and are no better than other authoritarian totalitarians. hes just going through the tops hits of illiterate anti-communist propaganda but typing extra words to sound serious

>>2509651
>>youre not allowed to talk about antisemitism, while the west is geopolitically scapegoating israel as the root of all evil
made up shit nobody said award
>nothing bad ever happened before 1948 i guess.
also not what is being said. what is being said is that the vast majority of whining about antisemitism, right now, in the current political environment, is not against actual nazis (who are natural allies of the zionists, since both advocate for imperialist ethnostates) , but against anti-zionists. You hear Hudson rightfully describing the US economy and think "wow this is antisemitic because he attacks interest and rent more than he attacks profit." But the entire reason he attacks interest and rent more than he attacks profit isn't because of some kind of antisemitism, but because the US economy has objectively outsourced commodity production, the source of most profit under capitalism, and instead has fallen back on rent and interest through the FIRE sector and service economy (including service software).

>>2509711
🤣🤣
>>2509715
that wasnt me, but i responded sympathetically to that anon anyway.
>>2509737
communism is just red fascism, yes. or rather, both are simply alternative forms of totalitarianism:
<"Arbeit Macht Frei"
authoritarianism can either be effective or ineffective, but totalitarianism is always cultish backwardness (since it signifies zero social trust). having a strong state is different from having a total state.
>>2509768
ive literally never heard hudson criticise industrial profits, because he is fundamentally ambivalent on the question. he thinks working in a factory is more moral than working in an office. that is his normativity. as i say, he wouldnt be a hypocrite if he wasnt an academic. reminds me of mao checking to see who he deemed lazy. who is more lazy than an intellectual like mao? similarly, the cultural revolution targeted everyone except the jade emporer mao, but revolutions from above are common. what i at least appreciate in stalin's purges is that they largely targeted members of the party and elite rather than proles, so it was an internal contest of power as a proper caesarism rather than an irrational despotism.

is adam smith anon a anti communist?

>>2510225
i generally consider myself a centre-left liberal
i have previously said that hegel is better than marx on the question of politics, since marx imagines the synthesis of society into a higher conceptual unity (totalitarianism), while hegel perceives interminable contradiction between the sectors of society, which mediate each other in their sustained contradiction (like in his absolute idea). an example would be how in a republican government you separate between the executive, legislative and judicial, while a marxist would try to blend all of these things together. a balance of powers is like the equilibrium of a balance of trade. a marxist typically believes in neither. this notion of "resolving" immanent contradiction in a unitary abstraction is what i would say differs from what becomes of the hegelian tradition compared to the marxist. the biggest hegelians today are into psychoanalysis for example, since this concerns the frame of "consciousness" (what marx inherently criticises in his materialism) and contradiction (which marx wants to overcome with sublation). i find hegel preferable to marx on this question, therefore. what really undergirds my politics in general however is "justice" generally (as it did with rawls and plato). i see in locke's labour theory of property (self-possession) an order of legitimacy which can bring fairness to society, and locke founds the liberal tradition, so i pledge a basic respect to subsequent thinkers. justice is a question of property (who deserves what) and if youre a communist you want to abolish property, so by these standards, communism cannot bring justice (for example, stalin once said that a criminal is created by society, so he should not be punished so harshly, but society itself must be reformed. i dont believe in this anarcho-tyranny one bit. as kant says - enlightenment means becoming free and independent).

>>2510247
>Justice is most important
>Btw I love John Locke (slave owner) so property rights overrides justice
>Abolishing property sounds scary and is unjust (reason: dude trust me I like my private yacht)
You're a fascist who deserves to be gulaged.

>>2510247
ah so you are a liberal. Why are you in this board? No offense

>>2510247
Hello Dr Zizek

>>2510249
>property rights override justice
? justice is nothing besides a form of property rights. as someone like david graeber elucidates, many of our social institutions are based on credit-debt relations, where court for example demonstrates an economic judgement (such as possessing "debts against society", being "redeemed, "forgiven", etc). you are "charged" a sentence and are made to pay it by penance (a catholic concept which mirrors the jewish notion of indentured servitude, where after 7 years of slavery, your sins are forgiven). plato sees how "justice" is the idea behind the social division of labour and so also the distribution of property and power. justice is given in what people deserve according to their natural talents (what plato refers to as "metals" which comport to souls). aristotle sees that injustice arises from the inequality of wealth, so seeks redistribution by a contract of friendship. as aristotle says, everything is equal amongst friends, and so the good is also defined by this preference for shared property. plato idealised this in the realm of guardianship but aristotle saw property as essentially private, which was also the view of epicurus, who combated platonic society by seeing it not as an equal trust in its members, but as an equal distrust of each other's riches. his communalism was like aristotle's politics, based around friendship (which rightly according to plato, was the perfect relationship, unlike romance, which falls into inevitable discord). a society of lovers is a jealous society; a society of friends is an orderly society, moreso than even a family. a society of lovers takes each other's riches as their own property (matthew 19:5); a society of families makes tribes unto themselves which exclude the rest. friendship means access to another's property without its confiscation. it is an ethical state of affairs. if your friend stole money from you when he desired it, he would no longer be your friend, yet he may borrow. in what orders society then is an inherent consideration of property, which is ignored by thieving communists, who are worse than savages.
>Abolishing property sounds scary and is unjust
well, commies dont want to actually abolish property, but want to simply transfer the ownership of property to the state. its worse than war (propertylessness) and is actually a form of universal slavery (dependence). at least in war, the acquisition of property has temporary legitimacy (which is why a noble slave will run away from his master). in slavery, you are made permanently unfree by the monopoly of property belonging to another. this is also part of why i call marx's "communism" a sublime form of "state capitalism".

>>2510256
why wouldnt i be here? if you mean to imply that leftism is exclusionary of liberalism then you are historically and theoretically illiterate. marxism isnt even really left-wing.

i have addressed the false ideas that marx was a liberal seeking to complete the bourgeois revolution here:
>>2488650
>>2489562
this appears to be a myth amongst trotskyists who try to reclaim marx from stalin by inserting him back into the western zeitgeist (a la lenin's "3 components"):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm
>It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm
i have even addressed this nomenclature of marxism's zeitgeist before, refuting marx's supposed "french" influence and centring his anglo-american inspiration. we may read from such select sources:
>when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto […] in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm
marx in the communist manifesto obviously posits communism not just as antagonistic to capitalism, but even moreso, to existing socialist movements (1848):
>reactionary socialism, feudal socialism, clerical socialism, christian socialism, petty-bourgeois socialism, german socialism, "true" socialism, conservative socialism, bourgeois socialism, proudhonism, etc.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm
marx shows particular friendship to anglo movements:
>Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm
and distinguishes between british "communists" and french "socialists" here, presenting the socialists in a lesser light than the communists (1863):
>In the Ricardian period of Political Economy there arises the opposition to it, namely, Communism (Owen) and Socialism (Fourier and Saint-Simon). The latter are still in their swaddling clothes.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/post-ricardian.htm
as i say, marx prefers capitalist progress to socialist reform, and so also puts emphasis on the anglo-american cradle of history's movement (1867):
>The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future […] As in the 18th century, the American war of independence sounded the tocsin for the European middle class, so that in the 19th century, the American Civil War sounded it for the European working class. In England the process of social disintegration is palpable. When it has reached a certain point, it must react on the Continent.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm
marx's determinism here places destiny in the hands of the british empire. the advancement of britain regarded by marx is also spoken of by engels (1886):
<England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p6.htm
of socialist ideas, marx openly adopts robert owens' labour certificates in his own vision (1867/75):
>Owen’s “labour-money,” for instance, is no more “money” than a ticket for the theatre.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm
<He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
of french socialist ideas, only engels makes reference to saint-simon's "administration of things" (1880):
>what is here already very plainly expressed is the idea of the future conversion of political rule over men into an administration of things and a direction of processes of production – that is to say, the “abolition of the state”, about which recently there has been so much noise.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm
marx did not appear to conceive of socialism as its own system, but only as a sublation of capitalism (1867/75):
>It is the negation of negation […] The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialised production, into socialised property.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm
>What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
so marx did not consider socialism progressive, but only capitalism, since its capitalism, not socialism, which socialises production based on private centralisation. marx was not inspired by "french socialism" but english capitalism. the point of this is to say that french socialism is born from the french left (republicanism), while marxism is not. marxism has no continuity with the french revolution, while other movements do. so lenin is wrong about that, and consequently, marxism loses its leftist historicity. further, the left has historically been a bourgeois movement while marxists attempt to proletarianise themselves, even as marx writes in what the circumstances were in 1847, with socialism being largely bourgeois in its conception, and so rejecting it. here are lenin's comments on "left-wing" communism (1920):
>But that is not all. The history of the working-class movement now shows that, in all countries, it is about to go through (and is already going through) a struggle waged by communism—emergent, gaining strength and advancing towards victory—against, primarily, Menshevism, i.e., opportunism and social-chauvinism (the home brand in each particular country), and then as a complement, so to say, Left-wing communism. The former struggle has developed in all countries, apparently without any exception, as a duel between the Second International (already virtually dead) and the Third International. The latter struggle is to be seen in Germany, Great Britain, Italy, America (at any rate, a certain section of the Industrial Workers of the World and of the anarcho-syndicalist trends uphold the errors of Left-wing communism […] We must see to it that Communists do not make a similar mistake, only in the opposite sense, or rather, we must see to it that a similar mistake, only made in the opposite sense by the “Left” Communists, is corrected as soon as possible and eliminated as rapidly and painlessly as possible. It is not only Right doctrinairism that is erroneous; Left doctrinairism is erroneous too. Of course, the mistake of Left doctrinairism in communism is at present a thousand times less dangerous and less significant than that of Right doctrinairism (i.e., social-chauvinism and Kautskyism); but, after all, that is only due to the fact that Left communism is a very young trend, is only just coming into being. It is only for this reason that, under certain conditions, the disease can be easily eradicated, and we must set to work with the utmost energy to eradicate it.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch10.htm
here, lenin directly opposes the left "deviation" of the communist movement, which is an odd thing for a "leftist" to be advocating for. at this point then (1920; 131 years after the french revolution began), marxism had not yet colonised the left, but rather it was feared by lenin, that the left may colonise marxism. trotsky in speaking of the "left opposition" within the USSR speaks of their demands to nationalise land, which was denied by molotov (1936):
>The struggle in the party about the so-called “general line”, which had come to the surface in 1923, became especially intense and passionate in 1926. In its extended platform, which took up all the problems of industry and economy, the Left Opposition wrote: “The party ought to resist and crush all tendencies directed to the annulment or undermining of the nationalization of land, one of the pillars of the proletarian dictatorship.” […] Molotov, the future president of the Soviet of People’s Commissars, said repeatedly: “We not slip down (!) into poor peasants illusions about the collectivization of the broad peasant masses. In the present circumstances it is no longer possible.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch02.htm
so then, a "left opposition" (1923-27) existed to defend the proletarian dictatorship from stalin. as trotsly says however,
>In the spring of 1923, at a congress of the party, a representative of the “Left Opposition” – not yet, however, known by that name…
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch02.htm
to trotsky, it was simply the "opposition" or "new course" against the "old guard":
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/newcourse/index.htm
what then granted it a "left" character? lets read (1931):
>The development of the International Left Opposition is proceeding amidst sharp crises that cast the fainthearted and the shortsighted into pessimism.
https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/Letter_to_all_Sections_of_the_International_Left,_February_17,_1931
here then, the "left" has the same meaning as it does to lenin, as a deviation or criticism of soviet policy. trotsky gives another meaning to it here however (1931):
>It is the task of the Left Opposition to reestablish the thread of historic continuity in Marxist theory and policies
https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/Letter_to_all_Sections_of_the_International_Left,_February_17,_1931
here then there is a direct link of what is "left" to "marxism", but the "left" is only opposed to the USSR in its affirmation of a marxist orthodoxy. if only these people would have known marx's own feelings (1870s):
<The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late [18]70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htm
so then, we have unraveled the "infantile disorder" of "left-wing" marxism i suppose. it is a criticism of the USSR which eventually became spearheaded by trotsky as a united and international "left opposition" to leninism. this actually directly relates the the "new left" movement, which we can read in its origins here (1962):
>The bridge to political power, though, will be built through genuine cooperation, locally, nationally, and internationally, between a new left of young people, and an awakening community of allies […] the dreams of the older left were perverted by Stalinism and never recreated; the congressional stalemate makes men narrow their view of the possible
https://web.archive.org/web/20090705062937/http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html
here, the SDS ("students for a democratic society") oppose the "old left" for a new movement (keynes also proposed "new liberalism" in the 1930s to combat both state socialism and free market capitalism, which is a "new left" of sorts, but historically disconnected. i have previously disproven any notion that keynes was a socialist in disguise). this student new left is identical with trotsky's "new course" opposing the "old guard", with stalin equally being the villain. the new left, which we may define as "trotskyism" then comes to dominate marxism and especially students, up to this very day. so then, what is "left" in marxism is only what is "left" to leninism, not left to what is "right". this will be my statement then, that the "true" leftists are liberals, while "orthodox" marxists are only "left" to leninism. radical bourgeois subjects are the left. there is no "left" of the left, but only the right. todd mcgowan has called marx a right-winger before (since marx wants to resolve contradiction rather than maintain its self-relation).

>>2510768
only council communism and anarchism will survive in the west

>>2510745
>commies dont want to actually abolish property, but want to simply transfer the ownership of property to the state
you lie

>>2510770
in communism, the government owns everything;
therefore all property belongs to the state.
>>2510768
marx criticises the (christian) state and (jewish) civil society here as contradictory elements which must be sublated (into a higher synthetic unity of each):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
marx wants to abolish the division of labour to unite production into a single concept of activity:
>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished…
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
marx wants to abolish all class distinctions by creating a totalitarian state (everything in the state, nothing outside the state, since for anything to exist outside the state, it creates a contest for power):
>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State […] When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
ᴉuᴉlossnW defines his totalitarianism as everything self-determined in the unifying concept of the state:
>Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value,-outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.
https://constitution.org/1-Corruption/tyr/ᴉuᴉlossnW.htm
<Everything within the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State
https://bibliotecafascista.blogspot.com/2012/03/speech-of-ascension-may-26-1927.html
who said it best? hitler or marx?
>Arbeit macht frei
<labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want

>>2510795
Property Is Theft

>>2510839
>property is theft
thoughts on "possession"? from proudhon (1841):
>Thus, according to M. Leroux, there is property and property, — the one good, the other bad. Now, as it is proper to call different things by different names, if we keep the name “property” for the former, we must call the latter robbery, rapine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we reserve the name “property” for the latter, we must designate the former by the term possession, or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonymy […] I boldly declare that, in regard to property, I hold no other opinion than that of M. Leroux; but, if I should adopt the style of the philosopher, and repeat after him, “Property is a blessing, but the property caste — the statu quo of property — is an evil,” I should be extolled as a genius by all the bachelors who write for the reviews. If, on the contrary, I prefer the classic language of Rome and the civil code, and say accordingly, “Possession is a blessing, but property is robbery,” immediately the aforesaid bachelors raise a hue and cry against the monster, and the judge threatens me. Oh, the power of language!
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/blanqui-letter.htm
we may also read this commentary:
<Proudhon did argue for the social ownership of land and capital, using the word indivise (“joint” or “undivided”) to describe it. Such “undivided” ownership by all was the framework within which possession (use) was exercised. As Jack Hayward notes, it was “the community which alone owns property, although its use is accorded to individual and associated producers linked by free contract” and while “the means of production should be publicly owned, production itself should be organised by workers companies.” Other commentators on Proudhon – Max Stirner, Daniel Guérin, Georges Gurvitch, and Robert L. Hoffman – concur […] The notion of Proudhon advocating “mutualist private property” is incorrect and it would be better to use his term: possession.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarcho-proudhon-property-and-possession
marx also makes distinction between "private" and "self-earned" property here:
>In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labour of others, i.e., on wage labour […] The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm
this sublated "individual property" is described here:
<Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it […] nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
this individuality is contradicted by "bourgeois right" of property however, since individuals have different attributes and so are given different portions of the social product (income):
>in spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor. But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
so to marx, fairness is unfair and we must overcome this trade of equivalents for what is equitable rather than equal:
<only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
in practical terms, this means an oppression of the talented by the talentless.

>>2510247
isn't this form of society historically overcome by the whole world being divided between imperialists? how can you have a politics based on ownership when most people own nothing? besides that it only ever existed when it could be supported by the american genocide

>>2510795
how did you get "Muh Totalitarianism" out of that 1844 work, which btw he wrote when he was 26?

>>2510204
>ive literally never heard hudson criticise industrial profits
because he lives in a country that has already de-industrialized and is commenting on that political reality
>. he thinks working in a factory is more moral than working in an office.
you've never heard him say this either yet you come to that conclusion while also slandering him as antisemitic

>>2510795
>in communism, the government owns everything;
>therefore all property belongs to the state.
you lie and repeat liberal slander of communism

>>2510247
I'm sorry but this Adam smith poster doesn't seem much more than a pedantic sophist to me. All those words and paragraphs to not explain why you defend capitalism/why communism is bad. You behave like a Jordan Peterson-esque figure who always avoids explaining his views with clarity.

>>2511163
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/04/michael-hudson-the-truth-about-the-destruction-of-the-palestinians.html
MICHAEL HUDSON: I think I should start with my own background, because 50 years ago, in 1974, I was working with the Hudson Institute, with Herman Kahn, and my colleagues there were a number of Mossad agents who were being trained. Uzi Arad was there, and he became the head of Mossad and is currently the main advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu.
Michael hudson admits to be colleagues with zionist agents. Michael hudson is a zionist. Zionism is anti-semetic so michael hudson is anti-semetic. Michael hudson is anti-semetic trotskyite

>>2511373
ok troll

>>2511390
Michael hudson literally admitted to training mossad agents at the farm. Michael hudson is wretched bourgeois political economist and zionist agent. That little history lesson of his you shared doesnt change that

>>2511407
that's not precisely what your text says. you lie.

>>2511340
>All those words and paragraphs to not explain
yeah hes been doing it for over a year now

>>2511340
>. All those words and paragraphs to not explain why you defend capitalism/why communism is bad.
He claimed to want a "Non-Marxist Socialism" in /political economy/ #1 or #2 if I recall, but yeah, it's really bizarre. Like what does that even mean? A return to utopian socialism? Robert Owen? Fourier? But he's "Adam Smith" anon.

>>2511485
Do you think michael hudson meant he fetched coffee for the mossad trainees at the hudson institute when he said they were colleagues? Why do you defend someone who trained mossad agents? You have fallen for good cop tricknology. Michael hudson admits he worked under the supreme anti-Communist zionist imperialist tricknologist Herman Khan but he makes the right noises for your smooth, zionist brain so you compelled to defend him

retards here really attacking hudson, huh

retards here really defending a CIA employed bourgeois economist that trained mossad agents under the management of Herman Khan, huh

>>2511519
death to michael hudson!

>>2511519
it's bait.

>>2511532
its not bait. hudson called mossad agents "colleagues." Your efforts to sweep this skeleton under the rug are futile and cringe. No bourgeois political economist should ever be defended, especially if they work for the CIA like michael hudson

retard spotted

>>2511525
economists are in bed with the ruling class, you don't say. they study at the same elite schools that future US politicians and CIA agents attend, and typically share ideology, connections, friendships. what matters is the way hudson exposes economists and capitalism. that valuable information is more important to me than whether he has retarded geopolitical opinions or worked with some zionist 50 years ago

>>2511554
this

>>2511540
>be michael hudson
>lifelong glowie career
>zero criticism
<starts siding with anti imperialism
>WOAH WOAH WOAH I HAVE TO ATTACK THE MICHAEL HUDSON OF TODAY WITH THE MICHAEL HUDSON OF 50 YEARS AGO

>>2511554
his geopolitical opinions aren't even retarded. he consistently sides against the imperial core: 5 eyes, NATO, EU, junior partners (Japan, South Korea, Singapore) and proxies (Israel Ukraine Taiwan). That's anti-imperialism in the current geopolitical context.

>>2511554
this argument is the epitome of bourgeois pragmatism—the belief that "valuable information" can gained from the enemy who provides it. The wise man studies his enemy, but only the fool trusts him to be his teacher. You do not need hudson to "expose" capitalism for you. You have Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. The notion that theory is useful when diluted by bourgeois revisionist paints you as political infant.
>economists are in bed with the ruling class, you don't say.
Your sarcasm is a shield for your own naivete. Your acknowledgement of the problem is meaningless because you ignore it.
>50 years ago
Why do you fight so hard to excuse Hudson's life-long service to trotskyism and imperialism?
>>2511560
https://michael-hudson.com/2024/03/china-local-flowers-bloom/
Hudson is still imperialist. He hosts trotskyites to this day. Hudson is a bourgeois theorist who, like all revisionist opportunist, happens to make the right noises sometimes to appease the idiots who support him. The Hudson of today calls China capitalist. Calling China capitalist is imperialism, not anti-imperialism. Calling China capitalist is express revision of proletarian political economy, typical of imperialist bourgeois political economist.

>>2511570
>The Hudson of today calls China capitalist. Calling China capitalist is imperialism, not anti-imperialism.
bruh

>>2511574
China is socialist. For real. China's rate of growth (wages grew x2-3 in size in 10 years) is only possible because of socialism.

>>2511570
>The Hudson of today calls China capitalist
where?

To theoreticians out here - what causes USA being unable to repair it's aircraft carrier in time for Trump's parade?

>>2511081
>how do you get totalitarianism out of that work?
because marx fundamentally disbelieves in the separation of powers and spheres of society (he sees the self-relation of state and civil society as inherently antagonistic which brings out social problems). if you believe in the public/private distinction, a communist reflexively cringes, because they are totalitarian.
>>2511165
im quoting marx's own words. communism is when the state centralises all property and people get paid in coupons. its a dumb idea that smart people fall for.
>>2511340
you dont understand because you dont even believe in the very idea of justice. you've made yourself uncivilised.
>>2511508
liberalism ≠ capitalism
as i write here: >>2510749
trotskyists think marxism = liberalism, but it doesnt.
what is liberalism? life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. liberte, egalite, fraternite. red, white and blue. a self-described liberal like ludwig von mises would describe liberalism simply as "property rights", which i would condense into the general concept of justice. another liberal john rawls would agree, but qualify justice as fairness, and this is my own perspective; justice is when people get what they deserve. buying and selling is a form of reciprocal justice, as aristotle says (nicomachaen ethics, book 5, chapter 5), and so to receive back what one gives ought to be the standard.

adam smith anon is trully a special person but in a bad way

>>2511540
>>2511570

remember kids

don't feed the TORposters

>>2510908
well, there are gradations to ownership even as locke recognises it. there is self-ownership as a basic axiom (since if one cannot sufficiently own themselves then they may become the property of another - aristotle uses the category of a "natural slave" to describe a creature such as a child or animal, with in aristotle's time, women also comprising the rank of creature incapable of rational self-possession, and so whom is traded and used as property of a master or husband). a practical example is indeed children or pets (who if they run away, may rightfully be returned to their owners). another common example is also the criminal, who is seen to be rightfully subject to the violence of the state in his imprisonment. the criminal is thus a slave of the state. in the classical period, slaves or servants also performed tasks of labour for a wage, so they can be compared to children or animals as dependents. the modern wage worker is adequately seen in this category as a dependent citizen who sells his labour to survive - as i say, a wage-slave (see: graeber). the conditions of self-dispossession (or self-indeterminacy) is not necessarily due to irrationality however, but also the lack of the means of subsistence. so then, self-possession as the axiom of property concerns 2 major faculties: reason (self-control) and independence. if we are either irrational or dependent, we do not own ourselves, but ultimately come under the possession of another.

following from this we may read locke (1690):
>Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm
here, locke sees that the principle of labour extends from man's self-possession. from labour comes the substance of property as a "mixture" of labour and nature, like how william petty describes wealth (1662):
<Labour is the Father and active principle of Wealth, as Lands are the Mother
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treatise_of_Taxes_and_Contributions_(1899)/X
locke uses other terms such as "distinction" or "removal" to describe this "appropriation" of the common for oneself. thus it is as proudhon declares, "property is robbery!" in the impossibility of its axiom.

locke appears ontological in considering this "mixture" of elements:
>That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm
here, we see labour added to nature granting man his private right, as a substance of property in itself. here, "property" gains a "fixed" quality in its being:
<The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them […] As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in…
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm
that of which labour is added to, becomes possessed by the one who laboured for it. this is the principle of property. we may as we have already, drawn an intrinsic relation between what locke calls property and what petty calls "wealth" dispensed as commodities. what differs perhaps, is that locke presumes a property intended to be used directly, rather than to be sold. a point in this is that locke sees property bounded by what is personally used, and henceforth, what may be possessed by others:
>It will perhaps be objected to this, that if gathering the acorns, or other fruits of the earth, &c. makes a right to them, then any one may ingross as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so. The same law of nature, that does by this means give us property, does also bound that property too […] As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm
we may say that this limit is consumption, or in marginal terms, the final degree of utility attached to an item. locke describes the progress of property being conditioned by money however, which thus fixed property in the title or contract attached to gold and silver, as forms of the legitimate exchange of products:
>And thus came in the use of money, some lasting thing that men might keep without spoiling, and that by mutual consent men would take in exchange for the truly useful, but perishable supports of life […] And as different degrees of industry were apt to give men possessions in different proportions, so this invention of money gave them the opportunity to continue and enlarge them […] Thus in the beginning all the world was America, and more so than that is now; for no such thing as money was any where known. Find out something that hath the use and value of money amongst his neighbours, you shall see the same man will begin presently to enlarge his possessions […] men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found out a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of, by receiving in exchange for the overplus gold and silver, which may be hoarded up without injury to any one; these metals not spoiling or decaying in the hands of the possessor.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm
here then, in locke's own terms, use-values pass over into exchange-values at the limit to what is useful in property (explicated in the same manner by adam smith, karl marx and carl menger, that trade begins by the surplus production of a particular item, and thus it is no longer an item of consumption, but of exchange). once trade is established, tokens such as precious metals act as a measure of wealth in property, which by its transfer, bestows right to the purchaser for what may be offered. the freedom of property then entails the freedom of its transfer, and so we enter a strange affair, where we take items in possession, not to use, but to give away. money acts as this principle exchange-value and so it becomes the standard medium of acquiring what somebody else has. so then, private property gains its common character again by the introduction of money, whereby men may access the possessions of another in exchange for his own. without money, there could only be envy or theft. with money, there is also contract.

the first principle of property in labour is called by some the "homestead principle" whereby those who occupy and cultivate a space may become its rightful owners, as opposed to the person of legal entitlement. murray rothbard (1969) has explored the homestead principle as i have written about here: >>2404717
where he argues that workers should re-possess factories, large corporations should be nationalised and the descendants of slaves should receive reparations. theft from a thief is simply justice as he says (in the same manner that murdering a murderer rights the wrong of the crime - reciprocity here standardises justice, as it does to aristotle in the sphere of exchange). the establishment of property is not simply the basis of justice, but also its rectification. to receive back what one is owed is not just economic, or judicial, but also theological. the good go to heaven and the evil go to hell. paul even says directly that "the wages of sin is death", economising the divine order. Jesus also says that the best will receive the most in heaven while the least good will receive the least. he prefigures this by speaking of earthly and heavenly treasures. a rejection of earthly treasures simultaneously means a gain of heavenly treasures, the same way there is the property of caesar and the property of God. this then appears directly as a case of inverted values, between use and exchange. a denial of earthly delights means a saving of money, concurrently (as marx also speaks of; the priestly character of the hoarder), while the indulgence in utilities means being sinful, and so submitting to the flesh rather than spirit. as yet, Christ appears to see money (as exchange-value) as literally demonised; a satanic token, such as it belongs to caesar (anti-christ of the new babylon), it corrupts the temple (turning the house of God into a den of thieves) and it is prefigured as "the mark of the beast" (whereby none shall buy or sell without it). Jesus also says that the rich should give away their possessions to the poor (where a rich man may not enter heaven). here then, Christ is contradicted between the asceticism of saving money, while also denying the authority which saving money brings. the function of saving here applies to a policy of redistribution, like how quantitative easing targets higher savers with negative interest rates, or how greater saving allows for greater public spending. was Jesus a keynesian?

continuing with this basis of property in the legitimacy of labour, we read from smith (1776) that the "value" of commodities comes from labour, which thus serves as the measure of value. profit, rent and interest are thus considered a tax on potential wages (an expropriation of surplus labour), and so entail the expropriation of the value created by another. as smith says of landlords, the reap where they have never sowed, and of capitalists, that their profits rise by inverse proportion to prosperity. so then, as we have originally related things, commodities, wealth and property have their right and origin in labour. so then, what is just is to preserve what is rightfully owed to those who create property, lest it be theft, as it is commonly estimated to be. now, this is very different from locke's proposal that money equally entails its right of disproportion, since this is a choice of the property owner ipso facto of possession. of the conditions of possession, is where justice must be preconditioned. i quote marx (1867) in this regard, where he sees the contract of sale of labour-power as entirely legitimate, but it is only the conditions of sale which must be rectified: >>2508103
so then, there is no exploitation in exchange:
<This sphere that we are deserting, within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham. Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labour-power, are constrained only by their own free will. They contract as free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but the form in which they give legal expression to their common will. Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is his own. And Bentham, because each looks only to himself. 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
william stanley jevons (1871) agrees with marx that the wage would be more beneficial to the labour of a shorter day, since it equates at a higher marginal product in proportion to its disutility: >>2495832
jevons also resolves this by stating that it is the right of the workman to set his days shorter (the same as the advocacy of marx by contested class struggle). so then, what is unjust is not the form, but the content of the contract, which can freely substitute a greater justice in place of injustice. this would be my claim then, that we need reform not revolution. i dont think its antiquated to say that labour deserves more than what it receives, precisely because it is the rightful property of workers (if you dont believe in property, then you dont believe in right, and so everything is debased to selfishness rather than fairness - in a word, it is a worldview of war, or perpetual theft). as marx also says, capitalist property supplants "self-earned property" through the primitive accumulation of bourgeois dictatorships, not through the inequalities of exchange - the difference is that marx thinks this expropriation is progressive, while i dont.

>>2511621
>but also the lack of the means of subsistence
>the homestead principle
yes this is what i am talking about. its been overcome by the fact the whole world is divided between capitalists.
>this would be my claim then, that we need reform not revolution.
yes this has also been overcome by post war neoliberalism. you cannot have reform in a capitalist world without dictatorship of the proletariat and a monopoly on the use of force to protect those reforms. social democracy does not work.

we know you are an illiterate retard from
>communism is when the state centralises all property and people get paid in coupons.
but if you actually read marx and lenin violent reform(revolution) is only a last resort in the face of violent defense of injustice on the part of the bourgeois state. they correctly predict that the bourgeois wont give up their ill gotten gains without a fight. its entirely possible they will with only the threat of force but this has historically never happened so people have to be armed and ready for the inevitable reaction to fairness, as from their warped perspective the bourgeoisie will perceive it as oppression

>>2511599
original question
<how do you get totalitarianism out of that work
your answer:
> if you believe in the public/private distinction, a communist reflexively cringes, because they are totalitarian.

you just reasserted totalitarianism without explaining why you have diagnozed that or why it's a useful framework. but ignoring that let's look at this part:

>public/private distinction:

Communists have no problem with PERSONAL property. PRIVATE property is different. Liberals ignore the personal/private distinction and claim that communists are opposed to all PRIVATE property (by which liberals mean both personal and private) and therfefore accuse communists of "totalitarianlism" (a snarl word that says communism and fascism are the same thing and that liberalism is above both). communists aren't coming for your toothbrush.


>im quoting marx's own words.
no you aren't

>communism is when the state centralises all property and people get paid in coupons.
that's not a quote, that's you trying to paraphrase. in any case you confuse communism with the lower stages of socialism. the state has withered away under communism. but marx's main contribution was a critique of political economy as it currently exists. Marx didn't do much socialist/communist worldbuilding because he wasn't a prophet or a fortune teller. he just wanted the proletariat to get organized and oppose the capitalist class. This is why he dedicated the majority of his energy to describing capitalism and much less of it to predicting what socialism would look like.

>its a dumb idea that smart people fall for.
how generous of you

>you dont understand because you dont even believe in the very idea of justice. you've made yourself uncivilised.
what does it mean to "believe" in an "idea" and how does this "belief" in "ideas" actually translate into action in a useful way. there are a lot of people who believe in nothing but move history forward through their actions, and there are a lot of people who have very lofty ideals but never leave the house.

>liberalism ≠ capitalism
totalitarianism ≠ communism

>trotskyists think marxism = liberalism
i don't think i've ever seen a trotskyist say this

>what is liberalism? life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. liberte, egalite, fraternite. red, white and blue. a self-described liberal like ludwig von mises would describe liberalism simply as "property rights", which i would condense into the general concept of justice.
von mises was a fascist collaborator in the austrian fascist government of Engelbert Dollfuss and praised fascism for its "good intentions"

>>2510904
Did you forget to quote the other part of the text that you hide in the communist manifesto? Let me quote then:

<Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

<But does wage-labor create any property for the worker? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labor, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

<To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

<Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

<When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

<Let us now take wage-labor.

<The average price of wage-labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labor, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

<In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In Communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.

<In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

<And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

<By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

<But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

<You are horrified at our intention to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

<In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

<From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

<You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

<Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Now let's see Marx's critique of Gotha's program of how the socialist economy is organized fits in with your false narrative of the oppression of the talented by the talentless:

<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

<Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

<The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

<Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Now let's see what you cited as a quote about "bourgeois law" in socialism in full comparison with what Marx wrote:

<Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

<Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

<In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

<But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

<But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme

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

https://www.youtube.com/live/J86C4IJTaFw
dugin was much more serious and consistent in this discussion than land. dugin's analysis of liberalism being the quest for the inhuman subject has much more theoretical canon than land's particularist nonsense which contradicts all of his earlier work. for example, marx already assigns capital as the inhuman subject which objectifies labour as an abstraction of its mode of production - land simply applies a telos to this (i.e. skynet, which in its fictional format is a total subject, and thus why it also sabotages itself). ian wright also lifts a passage from marx where in feuerbachian style, he assigns alienated labour in money as man's "real god"; a mode of subjectivity, or conceptual self-relation (the "medium of exchange", or social intercourse). i speak about this topic more fully here: >>2488766
… land sees globalisation as some sort of perversion of liberalism (despite liberalism literally originating out of global imperial conquest. the idea of free trade for example is literally a colonial concept, continued today). land's regression of liberalism as a "paleo" concept is bonkers, especially paired with land's rejection of cartesian subjectivity in place of an undefined "anglo" alternative. dugin mentions hume and his aristotelian notion of habituation and sympathy, but land isnt affirmative. further, land makes a popular misconception regarding smith's "invisible hand" (which he rightfully traces back to mandeville's "fable of the bees"). land assumes that it is the "anglo" ethos (despite smith being celtic) that one's selfishness serves the common good (an idea he properly relates to faustian negativity). the issue is that smith repudiates the illusion of the invisible hand here (1776):
>But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connexion with the general interest of the society, as that of the other two […] [capitalists'] superiority over the country gentleman is, not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch11c-3.htm
so then, the self-interest of the capitalist is actively detrimental to the interest of society, as opposed to that of the worker and the landlord [of whom extracts a surplus from the produce of land]. thus as smith says:
>The extension of improvement and cultivation tends to raise [rent] directly. The landlord’s share of the produce necessarily increases with the increase of the produce.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch11c-3.htm
so, rents and wages raise with productivity, while profits raise with the privation of produce (monopoly, or a lack of market competition, which smith likens to a tax):
<The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market, and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch11c-3.htm
so then, smith sees that there is no proper reconciliation between the private gain of capital and public virtue. the contemporary rhetoric of the invisible hand also serves a more consumerist vision of things, where the plurality of choice brings out the best results for each person. this is true in the most basic sense, as smith sees that what is best for workers is best for society, but it is modally different from the self-interest of producers.

>>2512302
>the homestead principle has been overcome
you misunderstand. the very founder of anarcho-capitalism is saying that the homestead principle is still in effect where it regards the re-appropriation of property as a claim of legitimacy. the marxist statement "profit is theft" for example denotes the illegitimacy of a certain form of property and so the call to appropriate what is stolen. stealing back what was stolen is not itself theft, but is justice. the first point of political action then is to define what is rightful property and what is not. if marxists cant do this, then they forfeit civilisation in place of war. my genaeology of the classical concept of property, wealth and value is to show that labour has a right to what it creates - which marx also resents as a lasallean slogan.
>you cannot have reform in a capitalist world without dictatorship of the proletariat
call it what you will.
>communism ISNT when property is centralised in yhe state and you are paid in coupons
interpret these passages for me:
>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State […] Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>Owen’s “labour-money,” for instance, is no more “money” than a ticket for the theatre.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm
<He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
why do you accuse me of illiteracy when you havent even read marx yourself? 🤔

>>2512886
>land assumes that it is the "anglo" ethos (despite smith being celtic)
lol

>https://www.youtube.com/live/J86C4IJTaFw

this channels thumbnails are a goldmine

>>2512609
your point?
>>2512395
>Communists have no problem with PERSONAL property. PRIVATE property is different.
what is the difference? you never defined it.
>im not quoting marx
read: >>2512897
then get back to me.
>you confuse communism with the lower stages of socialism
marx is against socialism. he calls his "co-operative society" a lower form of communism.
>the state has withered away under communism
only the "political" state, not the administrative state.
>totalitarianism ≠ communism
thats true, but communism = totalitarianism
>i don't think i've ever seen a trotskyist say this
i speak about it here:
>>2510749
>>2488650
>>2489562

>>2512910
>>2512907
>>2512906
oh no it is malfunctioning

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2025/09/14/us-economy-stagflation-now-more-than-a-whiff/

>Monetarist theory was also exposed in these periods. Central banks – especially the Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke, a disciple of the arch monetarist Milton Friedman, who claimed that inflation was essentially a monetary phenomenon (ie money supply drove prices) – assumed that the answer to the Great Recession of 2008-9 was to cut interest rates and boost to money supply through what was called quantitative easing (QE) ie the Fed ‘prints’ money and buys government and corporate bonds from the banks, which in turn were expected to increase lending (money supply) to companies and households to spend. But that did not happen. The real economy remained in depression and all money injections simply boosted financial asset prices. Stock and bond prices mushroomed. Again, monetarism ignored the real drivers of economic growth, spending and investment: the profitability of capital ie the supply-side.

Ah, so this shit is called monetarist theory. I keep running into retards with this view that inflation happens sorely due to money printing and nothing else

>>2512921
what causes inflation?

>>2512935
In what kind of an economy? One that has growing wages or not?

>>2512943
in the current american economy, what determines inflation?

>>2512951
Increase of population alongside decrease in workers, in a wide sense. Outputs stay the same, but there are more eaters

>>2512961
+ population
+ unemployment
this is alone what raises prices?

>>2512963
Inflation is spotty, i.e. one good increase in price and other might even decrease (like AI products). Some inflation is "monetarist" - property prices, for example, but this property price shit doesn't invade the wider economy and exists in a bubble

But generally speaking, for the US, it's the issue of stagnant outputs and increase in population

>>2512965
so thats a no?

>>2512969
You don't appear to be interested in truth

>>2512974
>what causes inflation?
<population and employment
>is that all?
<yes but no
i am looking for truth so am clarifying your statements

>>2512975
It is mostly population growth with no output growth, but also shit like profitability demands of certain companies, property bubble spilling over, yadda yadda. It's MOSTLY population and output, though.

So, yeah, yes and no.

>>2512981
and inflation has nothing at all to do with money supply?

>>2512987
Are you going to cry about it? Either say your piece, or fuck off.

>>2512989
why so angry? 🤨

>>2512991
You don't agree - you say it cleanly and explain why. Being a smug faggot only gets you hate and ridicule.

>>2512992
why should i disagree? what we've learned so far is that price inflation has nothing at all to do with money, but only population and employment.

>>2512910
>your point?
The text demonstrates that your narrative is false because talented workers only have the capacity to develop if all their needs are met from birth to the preparation of a new worker for the workforce in a socialist society. The quotes I posted demonstrate this, and these workers will already receive the means of consumption according to the work performed. This is not a problem, as all the needs of education, health, housing, childcare, transportation, food, use of tools, community, leisure, and free time of the population are met according to national economic planning, with the means of production available to meet the needs of workers, without financial speculation and the logic of profit with the abolition of private property.

>what is the difference? you never defined it.
I can easily answer that: the use of property and its personal relationship determine the difference between private and personal property. Let's take the example of housing. A family of workers can live in this residence, serving its purpose as shelter and therefore being their personal property. However, because it is owned by a landlord, the private property belongs to another person who merely has a relationship as an owner profiting in the market. The capitalist state, with its courts and recognition of private property, has, since its inception, been responsible for the mass expropriation of workers for the benefit of privileged capitalists who manipulate the use of debt and the legal system that was designed for the benefit of this class.

You can see that with the socialization of the financial system, the end of the courts of the capitalist system that maintain private property, and with the entire legal system being socialized, preventing the coercion and blackmail that capitalists use against workers through the use of lawyers, judges, arbitration, and contracts, the problems that many people complain about will be solved with the democratization of the entire economy.

>>2512910
>what is the difference? you never defined it.

Personal Property: use values that people use for their personal enjoyment or for meeting their immediate needs, such as clothing, personal tools, or household items. These are things that people use in their day-to-day lives but do not inherently or necessarily generate profit through exploitation. Personal property is non-exploitative in nature because it’s associated with individuals' direct use and enjoyment. Your toothbrush and cell phone are personal property.

Private Property: Private property refers to property that is used to generate profit through exploitation. It includes means of production like factories, land, and capital, things that are owned by individuals or corporations and are used alongside commodified labor power to produce surplus value, as well as goods and services that workers must spend their subsistence wages on. This form of property is tied to class relationships, where the bourgeoisie extract surplus value from the commodified labor-power of the proletariat. Private property, in this sense, is central to Marx's critique of capitalism because it allows the owners to maintain power and control over the economy, while the workers are alienated from the products of their labor.

Admittedly there may be some gray areas in this framework, for example a computer can be both a personal device but also a means of production. But it doesn't make the framework useless or irrelevant in most cases. The key is restructuring society to remove those sources of passive income which are generated from ownership rather than labor, since it gives the bourgeoisie huge amounts of leverage. Not only are they allowed to be idle while the working class generates profit for them by using their means of production, but they can use the surplus value to purchase more means of production, develop monopoly control over sectors of the economy, lobby the government for anti-competitive legislation, and lobby to decrease corporate and inheritance taxes. Being able to generates passive income through ownership basically leads to the entire political system being structured for their benefit.

>>2513594

There's so much hairsplitting and needless autistic complexity in Marxism.

I've become kind of disillusioned with Marxism over the years from learning more about history - Marx makes valid points but he seems to make the assumption that the everyday person in society was doing great until the emergence of industry and capitalism and then it all went wrong after that, but hyperconcentration of wealth and power has been a problem since the beginning of civilization and it's not a logistical problem or a technical problem that we can outsmart with some clever top-down model - it is a social progress problem, a human psychology problem. It is the Empire that is our enemy; capitalism is just a later incarnation of it. Instead of writing Das Kapital, Marx should have written Das Reich.

>>2513629

It's not just about our individual violent tendencies, all sorts of animal species fight and kill their own kind over resources or territory or whatever. There's a difference between imperalism and war, between two cultures fighting to settle some dispute and one culture trying to destroy every other culture and dominate and destroy the world.

>>2513666

The Empire never ended.

>>2513554
>in the lower phase of communism. what happens after that? i already explained.
You're still wrong. In high-stage communism, when the various contradictions between city and countryside, between skilled physical and intellectual labor, are resolved, after discipline is established among organized workers and production becomes abundant, the dictatorship of the proletariat begins to wither, along with the relaxation of rules for workers to consume what is produced with the means of production, which already belong to the entire society because they are public property.

Let's begin with a quote from Engels:

<The proletariat seizes state power and to begin with transforms the means of production into state property. But it thus puts an end to itself as proletariat, it thus puts an end to all class differences and class antagonisms, and thus also to the state as state. Moving in class antagonisms, society up to now had need of the state, that is, an organization of the exploiting class at each period for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, that is, particularly for the forcible holding down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression (slavery, villeinage or serfdom, wage-labour) given by the existing mode of production. The state was the official representative of the whole of society, its concentration in a visible body, but it was so only in so far as it was the state of that class which in its time represented the whole of society: in antiquity, the state of the slave-owning citizens, in the Middle Ages of the feudal nobility, in our time, of the bourgeoisie. When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

<Frederick Engels, 1877, Anti-Düring (Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science), Part II: Socialism, II. Theoretical

http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/AD78.html#p3s2

>so private property is when you own stuff and personal property is when you use it? we already have this distinction today by your definition, except that you want the government to own everything instead. so, you have no point. youre just repeating my points back to me.

You're still wrong. Everything used by multiple people needs to be maintained socially and collectively. By removing the relationship of property ownership, the so-called owners of these properties no longer have the ability to coerce workers because the entire population will have the right to employment, and all property will be used for their personal use and relationships. You pretend there is an essence in something that is socially constructed, but this is just a fantasy to justify the domination of the exploiting classes over workers. With the end of private property, housing will exist only for personal use and not for sale and purchase for speculation in the market. Therefore, it will fulfill its real function as long as it is used. Therefore, private property must be abolished to belong to the entire society.

You're trying to invent a sacred fantasy that prevents peasants from occupying landowners' land or factory workers from occupying a factory to organize collectively. You can use various tools and consumer products to be enjoyed by you anyway. By abolishing private property, the intermediaries who exploit other workers, the capitalists, will be the only ones affected by the political domination of the proletarian class. Therefore, I see no problem with ending market competition and moving towards associations serving the needs of the population in economic planning.

<All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

<The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

<The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

[…]

<All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

<That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

<But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

<The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

>>2513597
Again with distortions spreading lies. I will take a quote explaining where Marx wrote this quoted passage to know what he was referring to:

<This document was drawn up in May 1880, when French workers' leader Jules Guesde came to visit Marx in London. The Preamble was dictated by Marx himself, while the other two parts of minimum political and economic demands were formulated by Marx and Guesde, with assistance from Engels and Paul Lafargue, who with Guesde was to become a leading figure in the Marxist wing of French socialism. The programme was adopted, with certain amendments, by the founding congress of the Parti Ouvrier (PO) at Le Havre in November 1880.

<Concerning the programme Marx wrote: “this very brief document in its economic section consists solely of demands that actually have spontaneously arisen out of the labour movement itself. There is in addition an introductory passage where the communist goal is defined in a few lines.” [1] Engels described the first, maximum section, as “a masterpiece of cogent argumentation rarely encountered, clearly and succinctly written for the masses; I myself was astonished by this concise formulation” [2] and he later recommended the economic section to the German social democrats in his critique of the draft of the 1891 Erfurt Programme. [3]

<After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters arose over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply … as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” [4] Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”). [5]

<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n5

>>2513618
You are being ignorant. Marx does not say that everything was fine in the past and then problems arose with industrialization.

Let's see a quote talking about feudal socialism:

<A. Feudal Socialism
<Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French Revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation[A], these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political struggle was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.(1)

<In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus, the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new masters and whispering in his ears sinister prophesies of coming catastrophe.

<In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.

<The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.

<One section of the French Legitimists and “Young England” exhibited this spectacle.

<In pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite different and that are now antiquated. In showing that, under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society.

<For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeois amounts to this, that under the bourgeois régime a class is being developed which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of society.

<What they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletariat as that it creates a revolutionary proletariat.

<In political practice, therefore, they join in all coercive measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high-falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honour, for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits.(2)

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter III. Socialist and Communist Literature

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm

>>2513590
>>2513594
You continue to lie, defending the parasitism of private property, trying to hide the fact that the relationship of personal use is not the same as the relationship of private property owner who coerces those who do not own it.

I already responded to your lie here:
>>2513736

>>2513618
>I've become kind of disillusioned with Marxism over the years from learning more about history - Marx makes valid points but he seems to make the assumption that the everyday person in society was doing great until the emergence of industry and capitalism and then it all went wrong after that,

What?! He literally does the opposite. Holy shit. read Capital Volume 1, Chapters 26 and onward:

Actually. Fuck that. Just read the first sentence of the Manifesto:

<The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Marx is saying that class struggle is the engine of history for all of history. This includes before Capitalism. He describes the violence of Slavery and Feudalism at length. He describes the existence of Surplus labor and pre-industrial forms of capital (merchant's capital and usurer's capital) in the pre-capitalist systems.

Marx also says:

<But as soon as the question of property crops up, it becomes a sacred duty to proclaim the intellectual food of the infant as the one thing fit for all ages and for all stages of development. In actual history it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part. In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and “labour” were from all time the sole means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted. As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic.

>but hyperconcentration of wealth and power has been a problem since the beginning of civilization

Again,

<The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Do you know what "hitherto existing" means?

Hitherto is one of those old fashioned words. It means "until now" He is saying all societies that existed before he wrote the Manifesto had class struggles.

>and it's not a logistical problem or a technical problem that we can outsmart with some clever top-down model

That is literally why Marx wrote "Capital: A critique of political economy" to criticize this idea:

<Hence both the capitalist and his ideological representative, the political economist, consider that part alone of the labourer’s individual consumption to be productive, which is requisite for the perpetuation of the class, and which therefore must take place in order that the capitalist may have labour-power to consume; what the labourer consumes for his own pleasure beyond that part, is unproductive consumption.10 If the accumulation of capital were to cause a rise of wages and an increase in the labourer’s consumption, unaccompanied by increase in the consumption of labour-power by capital, the additional capital would be consumed unproductively.11 In reality,the individual consumption of the labourer is unproductive as regards himself, for it reproduces nothing but the needy individual; it is productive to the capitalist and to the State, since it is the production of the power that creates their wealth.

<Since past labour always disguises itself as capital, i.e., since the passive of the labour of A, B, C,etc., takes the form of the active of the non-labourer X, bourgeois and political economists are full of praises of the services of dead and gone labour, which, according to the Scotch genius MacCulloch, ought to receive a special remuneration in the shape of interest, profit, etc.48 The powerful and ever-increasing assistance given by past labour to the living labour process under the form of means of production is, therefore, attributed to that form of past labour in which it is alienated, as unpaid labour, from the worker himself, i.e., to its capitalistic form. The practical agents of capitalistic production and their pettifogging ideologists are as unable to think of the means of production as separate from the antagonistic social mask they wear today, as a slave-owner to think of the worker himself as distinct from his character as a slave.

<The stoical peace of mind with which the political economist regards the most shameless violation of the “sacred rights of property” and the grossest acts of violence to persons, as soon as they are necessary to lay the foundations of the capitalistic mode of production, is shown by Sir F. M. Eden, philanthropist and tory to boot. The whole series of thefts, outrages, and popular misery, that accompanied the forcible expropriation of the people, from the last third of the 15thto the end of the 18th century, lead him merely to the comfortable conclusion: “The due proportion between arable land and pasture had to be established. During the whole of the 14thand the greater part of the 15th century, there was one acre of pasture to 2, 3, and even 4 of arable land. About the middle of the 16th century the proportion was changed of 2 acres of pasture to 2,later on, of 2 acres of pasture to one of arable, until at last the just proportion of 3 acres of pasture to one of arable land was attained.”

<Political economy confuses on principle two very different kinds of private property, of which one rests on the producers’ own labour, the other on the employment of the labour of others. It forgets that the latter not only is the direct antithesis of the former, but absolutely grows on its tomb only. In Western Europe, the home of Political Economy, the process of primitive accumulation is more of less accomplished. Here the capitalist regime has either directly conquered the whole domain of national production, or, where economic conditions are less developed, it, at least, indirectly controls those strata of society which, though belonging to the antiquated mode of production, continue to exist side by side with it in gradual decay. To this ready-made world of capital, the political economist applies the notions of law and of property inherited from a pre-capitalistic world with all the more anxious zeal and all the greater unction,the more loudly the facts cry out in the face of his ideology. It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime everywhere comes into collision with the resistance of the producer, who, as owner of his own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself, instead of the capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed economic systems, manifests itself here practically in a struggle between them. Where the capitalist has at his back the power of the mother-country, he tries to clear out of his way by force the modes of production and appropriation based on the independent labour of the producer. The same interest, which compels the sycophant of capital, the political economist, in the mother-country, to proclaim the theoretical identity of the capitalist mode of production with its contrary, that same interest compels him in the colonies to make a clean breast of it, and to proclaim aloud the antagonism of the two modes of production. To this end, he proves how the development of the social productive power of labour, cooperation, division of labour, use of machinery on a large scale,&c., are impossible without the expropriation of the labourers, and the corresponding transformation of their means of production into capital.

<The great beauty of capitalist production consists in this – that it not only constantly reproduces the wage-worker as wage-worker, but produces always, in proportion to the accumulation of capital, a relative surplus-population of wage-workers. Thus the law of supply and demand of labour is kept in the right rut, the oscillation of wages is penned within limits satisfactory to capitalist exploitation, and lastly, the social dependence of the labourer on the capitalist, that indispensable requisite, is secured; an unmistakable relation of dependence, which the smug political economist, at home, in the mother-country, can transmogrify into one of free contract between buyer and seller, between equally independent owners of commodities, the owner of the commodity capital and the owner of the commodity labour.

Have I made my point clearly?

>>2513680
TRUTH NUKE

>>2513618
uh what about all the times he went on and on about how based and cool capitalism is

>>2514317
sounds stupid, it's easy to make an time table.

>>2514317
>1982
damn if only there were powerful computational devices that have become more widespread since then.

>>2513760
>quoting engels is spreading lies
you are extremely paranoid. get a life.
>>2513811
give me a single case of marx ever using the term "personal property" to distinguish from "private property". you cant, which proves that you dont read marx, you just believe internet memes because thats easier. its like a christian getting their beliefs from cartoons about noah's ark instead of reading the bible.
>>2513789
this says nothing about the condition of the past.
>>2513736
>when the various contradictions between city and countryside, between skilled physical and intellectual labor, are resolved
"resolved"? so everyone in society will be able to simultaneously be able to be a theoretical physicist, computer scientist, basketball player, chef, musician, comedian, assembly line worker and bus driver? work is specialised by divisions of labour (smith), and this division is the basis of increased social wealth (jevons). marx even says this here (1849):
>But the productive forces of labour is increased above all by a greater division of labour and by a more general introduction and constant improvement of machinery. The larger the army of workers among whom the labour is subdivided, the more gigantic the scale upon which machinery is introduced, the more in proportion does the cost of production decrease, the more fruitful is the labour. And so there arises among the capitalists a universal rivalry for the increase of the division of labour and of machinery and for their exploitation upon the greatest possible scale.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch08.htm
youll notice for example that what makes machines productive is their particular function. the machine is like an artificial limb, even as freud remarks (1905):
>But this peculiarity, which at first sight confuses our judgement, vanishes when we bear in mind that a restriction of our muscular work and an increase of our intellectual work fit in with the course of our personal development towards a higher level of civilization. By raising our intellectual expenditure we can achieve the same result with a diminished expenditure on our movements. Evidence of this cultural success is provided by our machines.
<freud, jokes and their relation to the unconscious
yet marx contradicts himself by saying what you said; that the division of labour in itself is oppressive. now, smith does actually comment on the limits to social wellbeing which specialisation brings, but says that this can be suppplemented with general labour. in contemporary terms, we often see specialists competent in one area (high I.Q. people are typically specialists) yet are incompetent in other areas. this is why you have intellectuals who cant dress themselves properly or clean up after themselves for example. so then, a society of specialists would mean a society of general incompetence (antoine montchretien also spoke of the equal worth of the mechanical and liberal arts in the same way). this is the theory of the public sector; we have private individiuals who are maintained by the public space. for example, a strike of public workers will always be more effective than private workers, since society relies on common publicity and not conditional privacy. so then, we have already "resolved" any issue without trying to make michael jordan out of a midget and vice versa. as i say, an oppression of the talented.
>which already belong to the entire society because they are public property
public property belongs to the government, not "society". again, this is your totalitarianism.
>Therefore, private property must be abolished to belong to the entire society.
<the government must own everything for everyone to be free
why do you keep repeating yourself?
>the entire population will have the right to employment
you mean that they are forced to work, surely. remember what hitler said; "those who dont work shall not eat". oh wait, that was lenin. or was it lenin who said "work sets you free"? hard to keep up with these socialists.
>You pretend there is an essence in something that is socially constructed, but this is just a fantasy to justify the domination of the exploiting classes over workers
youre the one talking about fantasy, when you think you can make albert einsteins out of the general public? we're all just some re-education and shock therapy away, apparently.
>With the end of private property, housing will exist only for personal use and not for sale and purchase for speculation in the market
by whose authority? the government. so this means that society is enslaved to state monopolists of capital. just like the piggies on animal farm, eh? again, this would all be easier if you just admitted that my characterisation of communism is perfectly correct. the government owns everything and you are paid in coupons. simple.
>private property must be abolished to belong to the entire society.
<when the government owns everything, we will be free
yes, i already read ᴉuᴉlossnW. why repeat his words?
>You're trying to invent a sacred fantasy that prevents peasants from occupying landowners' land or factory workers from occupying a factory to organize collectively.
you literally cant into reading comprehension. youre not going to make it as an albert einstein, no matter how much re-education.
>By abolishing private property, the intermediaries who exploit other workers, the capitalists, will be the only ones affected by the political domination of the proletarian class.
owning a home is bourgeois in your estimation so that will also be immediately seized by the state, and maybe some will even be kicked out for counter-revolutionary thought crimes. you are a thieving bastard pretending to be robin hood. but even then, robin hood gave money to the poor and you want to get rid of money. i wouldnt care if you wanted to just redistribute wealth, but you dont. you want to appropriate all wealth in the state, and put anyone who sells a commodity in a concentration camp because this is "alienation" (more marxist superstition dressed up in secular hegelian language). you are a state capitalist traitor to the working class.

>>2514317
more claptrap from the marxist mystic ian wright.
lets read from marx's own words instead:
>Man’s reflections on the forms of social life, and consequently, also, his scientific analysis of those forms, take a course directly opposite to that of their actual historical development. He begins, post festum, with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him. The characters that stamp products as commodities, and whose establishment is a necessary preliminary to the circulation of commodities, have already acquired the stability of natural, self-understood forms of social life, before man seeks to decipher, not their historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning. Consequently it was the analysis of the prices of commodities that alone led to the determination of the magnitude of value, and it was the common expression of all commodities in money that alone led to the establishment of their characters as values.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
the value of commodities is only decipherable through the appearance of prices? say it ain't so. but then again, ian is the type of guy to idly call william stanley jevons a racist instead of analysing his marginal theory of wages. he is a sophistical bore.

>>2513618
notice how the low effort replies that bought into this person's assumptions got replies but the high effort replies that debunked this person's assumptions got no replies.

>>2514785
anon said this:
>Marx makes valid points but he seems to make the assumption that the everyday person in society was doing great until the emergence of industry and capitalism and then it all went wrong after that,

this was directly refuted in this post >>2514275

if you call direct refutations with sources "blither" you have no counter arguments.

>>2514800
All those passages are from Volume 1 of Capital. All those passages are Marx criticizing the entire field of Political Economy for doing the very thing Marx is falslely accused ITT of: pretending there was an idyllic pre-capitalist past.

Neither Marx nor Engels EVER pretend there was an idyllic pre-capitalist past, and in fact they went out of their way to thoroughly criticize what they called "reactionary socialists" of their day for wanting to return to pre-capitalist, feudal, patriarchal forms of society instead of moving onto actual post-capitalist modes of production.

>>2514811
yeah we get it, you dont read

>>2514937
>sageposting
always the sign of a confident reply.
and why are you literally just blabbering "no u" to me?
and if thats your post which you are taking offense to my criticising, its cringe, since you were complaining about getting no (you)s, and also referring to your replies in the third person. secondly, you (if that is your post, which i suspect it is) you literally didnt read anon's post correctly and so replied with irrelevant scrawls of quotations, which you clearly have no defense for; but instead remain indignant that you made an "effortpost" (want a sticker?) so deserve an inherent respect. derangement.

>>2515114
lmao Im just a random passerby
just read the books dude, its obvious you have no idea about what you're attempting to critique

>>2514564
>you are extremely paranoid. get a life.
So the liberal apologist for private property parasitism is angry that I exposed your false narrative? The enemy class of capitalists will be expropriated anyway, no matter the outrage of apologists like you trying to spread lies out of fear that the proletarian class will become the ruling class to abolish private property, the anarchy of production, and the exploiting classes.

>Give me a single case of Marx ever using the term "personal property" to distinguish it from "private property." You can't, which proves that you don't read Marx; you just believe internet memes because that's easier. It's like a Christian getting their beliefs from cartoons about Noah's Ark instead of reading the Bible.
So you're dishonestly denying that bourgeois property is a historical construct and arose from the destruction of peasant property and the abolition of feudal property? Let's see examples of Marx putting a difference with quotes:

<All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

<The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

<The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

<In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

<We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

<Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

<Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

<But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

<To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

<Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

<When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Now, with another quote from the same passage you try to distort, pretending that capitalist private property is no different from small peasant production made with their own labor, while you pretend that bourgeois private property doesn't exist, with the specific interest of exploiting the surplus value of wage labor to sell on the market for profit like parasites:

<but the old social organisation fetters them and keeps them down. It must be annihilated; it is annihilated. Its annihilation, the transformation of the individualised and scattered means of production into socially concentrated ones, of the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few, the expropriation of the great mass of the people from the soil, from the means of subsistence, and from the means of labour, this fearful and painful expropriation of the mass of the people forms the prelude to the history of capital. It comprises a series of forcible methods, of which we have passed in review only those that have been epoch-making as methods of the primitive accumulation of capital. The expropriation of the immediate producers was accomplished with merciless Vandalism, and under the stimulus of passions the most infamous, the most sordid, the pettiest, the most meanly odious. Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labour of others, i.e., on wage labour. [1]

<Karl Marx, 1867, Capital Volume One, Chapter Thirty-Two: Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm

>"resolved"? so everyone in society will be able to simultaneously be able to be a theoretical physicist, computer scientist, basketball player, chef, musician, comedian, assembly line worker and bus driver?
Again you are wrong, confusing the relationship between capitalist private property, which in order to exist needs to coerce other workers to be able to exploit their labor force to profit from its private extraction, with the collective organization of property:

<With the division of labour, in which all these contradictions are implicit, and which in its turn is based on the natural division of labour in the family and the separation of society into individual families opposed to one another, is given simultaneously the distribution, and indeed the unequal distribution, both quantitative and qualitative, of labour and its products, hence property: the nucleus, the first form, of which lies in the family, where wife and children are the slaves of the husband. This latent slavery in the family, though still very crude, is the first property, but even at this early stage it corresponds perfectly to the definition of modern economists who call it the power of disposing of the labour-power of others. Division of labour and private property are, moreover, identical expressions: in the one the same thing is affirmed with reference to activity as is affirmed in the other with reference to the product of the activity.

<Further, the division of labour implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the “general interest,” but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labour is divided. And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now. [2]

<Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1845, Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook, A. Idealism and Materialism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

Furthermore, you confuse your abstract concept of freedom with the interests of the bourgeois class. Let's look at a quote from Engels:

<Hegel was the first to state correctly the relation between freedom and necessity. To him, freedom is the insight into necessity (die Einsicht in die Notwendigheit).

<"Necessity is blind only in so far as it is not understood [begriffen]."

<Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves — two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject. Therefore the freer a man’s judgment is in relation to a definite question, the greater is the necessity with which the content of this judgment will be determined; while the uncertainty, founded on ignorance, which seems to make an arbitrary choice among many different and conflicting possible decisions, shows precisely by this that it is not free, that it is controlled by the very object it should itself control. Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on knowledge of natural necessity; it is therefore necessarily a product of historical development. The first men who separated themselves from the animal kingdom were in all essentials as unfree as the animals themselves, but each step forward in the field of culture was a step towards freedom.

<Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels, 1877, Part I: Philosophy, XI. Morality and Law. Freedom and Necessity

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch09.htm

>public property belongs to the government, not "society". again, this is your totalitarianism.
You remain wrong and outraged to know that private property can only exist by coercing and depriving what is socially created from other propertyless workers, and therefore as a social construct that requires state repression due to the irreconcilability of social classes that keeps the state alive. You can hurl as many insults at me for hurting your feelings about your sacred superstition about private property, but this doesn't change the fact that the fantasy of your capitalist masters will end, and workers have the right to pursue their class interests in solidarity to abolish private property. The property of indigenous peoples did not follow your fantasy of private property having an eternal essence. Collective property is not the same as the property of a class-divided society that inevitably creates the state, which is alienated from the rest of society. If something belongs to the whole society and the government is not separate in a society with exploiting classes that alienate it, then there is no problem; this is only a problem for the antisocial petty bourgeoisie who identify with the big bourgeoisie as fools.

>you mean that they are forced to work, surely. remember what hitler said; "those who dont work shall not eat". oh wait, that was lenin. or was it lenin who said "work sets you free"? hard to keep up with these socialists.
I mean that unemployment is created by private property in capitalism to create a reserve army of labour to intensify the exploitation of workers and facilitate their coercion. Let's look at the programs of various communists like Marx, Engels, and Lenin with examples of proposals that are connected to the issue at hand:

<(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

<(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

<12. In the remuneration of all civil servants there shall be no difference except that those with a family, i.e. with greater needs, shall also receive a larger salary than the others.

[…]

<16. Establishment of national workshops. The state shall guarantee the livelihood of all workers and provide for those unable to work.

<Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels March, 1848, Demands of the Communist Party in Germany

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm

<1. One rest day each week or legal ban on employers imposing work more than six days out of seven. - Legal reduction of the working day to eight hours for adults. - A ban on children under fourteen years working in private workshops; and, between fourteen and sixteen years, reduction of the working day from eight to six hours;
<2. Protective supervision of apprentices by the workers' organizations;
<3. Legal minimum wage, determined each year according to the local price of food, by a workers' statistical commission;
<4. Legal prohibition of bosses employing foreign workers at a wage less than that of French workers;
<5. Equal pay for equal work, for workers of both sexes;
<6. Scientific and professional instruction of all children, with their maintenance the responsibility of society, represented by the state and the Commune;
<7. Responsibility of society for the old and the disabled;
<8. Prohibition of all interference by employers in the administration of workers' friendly societies, provident societies, etc., which are returned to the exclusive control of the workers;
<9. Responsibility of the bosses in the matter of accidents, guaranteed by a security paid by the employer into the workers' funds, and in proportion to the number of workers employed and the danger that the industry presents;
<10. Intervention by the workers in the special regulations of the various workshops; an end to the right usurped by the bosses to impose any penalty on their workers in the form of fines or withholding of wages (decree by the Commune of 27 April 1871);
<11. Annulment of all the contracts that have alienated public property (banks, railways, mines, etc.), and the exploitation of all state-owned workshops to be entrusted to the workers who work there;
<12. Abolition of all indirect taxes and transformation of all direct taxes into a progressive tax on incomes over 3,000 francs. Suppression of all inheritance on a collateral line [8] and of all direct inheritance over 20,000 francs.

<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

<Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

[…]

<Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme

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

<1) An eight-hour working day for all wage-workers.

<1) An eight-hour working day for all wage-workers, including a break of not less than one hour for meals where work is continuous. In dangerous and unhealthy industries the working day to be reduced to from four to six hours.

<2) A statutory weekly uninterrupted rest period of not less than forty-two hours for all wage-workers of both sexes in all branches of the national economy.

<3) Complete prohibition of overtime work.

[…]

<8) State insurance for workers covering old age and total or partial disablement out of a special fund formed by a special tax on the capitalists.

<8) Full social insurance of workers:

<a) for all forms of wage-labour;

<b) for all forms of disablement, namely, sickness, injury, infirmity, old age, occupational disease, child-birth, widowhood, orphanhood, and also unemployment, etc.

<c) all insurance institutions to be administered entirely by the insured themselves;

<d) the cost of insurance to be borne by the capitalists;

<e) free medical and medicinal aid under the control of self-governing sick benefit societies, the management bodies of which are to be elected by the workers.

<9) Payment of wages in kind to be prohibited; regular weekly pay-days to be fixed in all labour contracts without exception and wages to be paid in cash and during working hours.

<10) Prohibition of deductions by employers from wages on any pretext or for any purpose whatsoever (fines, spoilage, etc.).

<V. I. Lenin, 1917, Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme, Chapter 4: Draft of Revised Programme

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/reviprog/ch04.htm

>>2514564
>you're the one talking about fantasy, when you think you can make albert einsteins out of the general public? we're all just some re-education and shock therapy away, apparently.
When the entire population in a society has the right to employment, public education, daycare with collective social responsibility for childcare, public health, transportation, nutritious sovereign food, use of public tools and technologies, leisure, culture, community, and the ability to express themselves without the logic of profit, then the human intellectual capacity of workers can develop with public funds. It is clear that capitalists, counterrevolutionaries, landowners, and agents of the capitalist state and the maintenance of its superstructure will be expropriated and re-educated for denying the domination of the proletariat. Antisocial tendencies will easily be resolved with re-education and punishment against collaborators of imperialist capitalism.

>by whose authority? the government. so this means that society is enslaved to state monopolists of capital. just like the piggies on animal farm, eh? again, this would all be easier if you just admitted that my characterisation of communism is perfectly correct. the government owns everything and you are paid in coupons. simple.
Wrong. The new ruling class, the proletarian class, will abolish private property when capitalists lack the army and police to maintain the social construct of private property against the masses of peasants, proletarians, and other armed workers organized as a class to defend their class interests against the exploiting classes, where the exploiting classes will fail in the class struggle. The state exists for one class to oppress another, and class conciliation is a lie. Therefore, this problem will be solved through the class struggle, which will lead to the extinction of private property. Why should I value your superstitious fantasies about the state and property?

>yes, i already read ᴉuᴉlossnW. why repeat his words?
Funny. Because neoliberalism, with the domination of financial capital, inventing the idea that class conciliation exists, is closer to the Germany and Italy of that era than to the other bourgeois democracies of that era, with its beloved Austrian school directly linked to the collaborators who handed Austria over to Hitler and who directly served to maintain collaborators who served American capitalist imperialist hegemony in the world. Current capitalism is a direct descendant of all this, and all of this will end with the end of private property and social classes. The costs cannot be transferred to another worker with the collective organization of the socialist economy. This is why men will not have private property to abuse women or parents to abuse their children. For prejudice against other peoples to develop, unemployment and regional inequality are necessary, created by capitalist market competition using this private property, which is alienated from the rest of society because it is not collectively organized by the entire society.

>owning a home is bourgeois in your estimation so that will also be immediately seized by the state, and maybe some will even be kicked out for counter-revolutionary thought crimes. you are a thieving bastard pretending to be robin hood. but even then, robin hood gave money to the poor and you want to get rid of money. i wouldnt care if you wanted to just redistribute wealth, but you dont. you want to appropriate all wealth in the state, and put anyone who sells a commodity in a concentration camp because this is "alienation" (more marxist superstition dressed up in secular hegelian language). you are a state capitalist traitor to the working class.

Again, you don't understand that all the roles used to maintain private property will be undone. Every resident or peasant living there will still continue to use the homes they live in, but there will no longer be a market for selling and speculating on anything. This means that the stock market will cease to exist in socialization, all private banks will be suppressed and nationalized to facilitate socialization and economic planning, where private property will be abolished, and money will lose its function the more socialized the economy becomes. Housing will be grouped into popular workers' councils to maintain their conditions in an acceptable manner. If you live in a place, you have a personal use relationship as long as it doesn't conflict with the rest of society and its needs. Don't you understand that the constant use of force is necessary to maintain private property where you don't live? Elderly care will be a social responsibility without requiring any market speculation, so there's no problem. Any building used by multiple people will be socially maintained. If this property is temporarily used, this worker will maintain it in their personal relationship until they stop using it, with a personal responsibility until it becomes vacant and returns to collective maintenance.

Remember that the proletariat will be organized as a class, collectively as the ruling class, in the future proletarian democracy with the revolution to abolish social classes, private property, and the anarchy of production, where the intelligentsia, together with other workers, must act based on what they have in common with the proletariat and not individually for themselves. You're confusing the proletariat with an identity. My interest lies solely in the supremacy of the proletariat to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. The opinions of individuals are irrelevant to me. If a worker wishes to act like a class traitor, they will be punished as a class traitor, or if a worker wishes to be a capitalist, it is irrelevant to the objective of the antagonistic interest of the proletarian class against the capitalist class.

This discourse of yours, used to deceive ill-informed workers in the developed world with moralistic rhetoric, doesn't work for me.

Let's take a quote to give you an idea of ​​what a communist is:

<The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

<The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

<The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

You don't even know what state capitalism is. This is a term Lenin used to use public enterprises to direct the economy using a limited market with cooperatives during the NEP. State capitalism is superior to private capitalism, but even if it is used to encourage cooperatives and develop the means of production, because a portion of the population still lives in a small-scale peasant economy, this type of economy will still suffer from crises and problems associated with capitalism. This can be used in a proletarian democracy or a bourgeois state, but the proletarian state must use it as a weapon to socialize the economy, prepare peasants for collective labor, and acquire maximum technological sovereignty to plan the economy. State capitalism was more commonly used in bourgeois democracies before the prevalence of neoliberalism and neoclassical orthodoxy, which was consolidated with the Washington Consensus, making the use of state capitalism taboo for ideological reasons.

>>2514568
Literally the next sentence:
<It is, however, just this ultimate money form of the world of commodities that actually conceals, instead of disclosing, the social character of private labour, and the social relations between the individual producers.
Marx is describing a person living under capitalism having a delusional view of things, not endorsing having that view. For fucks sake. Have you ever read a single chapter of Marx (or any other thinker you cite) in one go?

>>2515188
marx was anti-socialist and pro-capitalist,
as i have already explained: >>2510749
>>2515645
>weird how all these people who read marx come to the same conclusion
weird, huh? 🤒👌
>>2515612
>Marx is describing a person living under capitalism having a delusional view of things
delusional in what capacity…? to marx, the price of a commodity is its form of value in money. marx also doesnt contradict what he directly states here:
>Consequently it was the analysis of the prices of commodities that alone led to the determination of the magnitude of value, and it was the common expression of all commodities in money that alone led to the establishment of their characters as values.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
so please dont talk to me if you dont have a point.

>>2515583
>So the liberal apologist for private property parasitism is angry that I exposed your false narrative?
marx was not a marxist. take it up with engels.
>So you're dishonestly denying that bourgeois property is a historical construct and arose from the destruction of peasant property and the abolition of feudal property?
im doubting your terminological legitimacy. marx exclusively refers to both precapitalist and capitalist property as "private property", with differentiation only referring to the class which possesses it. that is all. marx's historical example simply describes the transfer of ownership, not the qualitative change of property.
>Furthermore, you confuse your abstract concept of freedom with the interests of the bourgeois class
i dont confuse anything. freedom is a bourgeois concept which i seek to defend, from communists and capitalists alike.
<Hegel was the first to state correctly the relation between freedom and necessity. To him, freedom is the insight into necessity
this is literally false. it was kant who "first" defined freedom as necessity; the unconditional whose own condition is itself. the categorical imperative.
>private property can only exist by coercing and depriving what is socially created from other propertyless workers
you are talking to me using your own property.
>The property of indigenous peoples did not follow your fantasy of private property having an eternal essence
i dont care about your noble savages.
>Collective property
doesnt exist. if everyone "owned" everything, there would no longer be property, since property is defined by exclusive ownership. to "own" everything would also mean possessing other people, so slavery, murder and rape would be permitted, since one would have no exclusive rights to himself. this is why rights depend upon the axiom of self-ownership.
>unemployment
unemployment is necessary. you want pensioners and children to work? marx supported child labour:
<A general prohibition of child labor is incompatible with the existence of large-scale industry and hence an empty, pious wish. Its realization – if it were possible – would be reactionary, since, with a strict regulation of the working time according to the different age groups and other safety measures for the protection of children, an early combination of productive labor with education is one of the most potent means for the transformation of present-day society.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/append.htm
>>2515586
>When the entire population in a society has the right to employment, public education, daycare with collective social responsibility for childcare, public health, transportation, nutritious sovereign food, use of public tools and technologies, leisure, culture, community, and the ability to express themselves without the logic of profit, then the human intellectual capacity of workers can develop with public funds.
will a hierarchy of intelligence and talent exist in a communist society? yes or no?
>The state exists for one class to oppress another
the purpose of the state is to protect property, as aristotle, locke and smith say - which is why aristotle wanted to redistribute property, to enfranchise citizens into the care of the state.
>Every resident or peasant living there will still continue to use the homes they live in, but there will no longer be a market for selling and speculating on anything
because it will belong to the government, who will then have the right to evict people from their homes.
>Don't you understand that the constant use of force is necessary to maintain private property where you don't live?
you have to fight for what belongs to you. thats why its in the interests of the american empire to demilitarise their subjects, like how its in the state's interest to take away people's means of defending themselves.
>the intelligentsia, together with other workers
theres never been a communist intellectual who was working class. communism is about intellectuals ruling over society using the working class as slaves.
>You're confusing the proletariat with an identity
it is one. your politics are identity politics.
>If a worker wishes to act like a class traitor, they will be punished as a class traitor
which means concentration camps for thought criminals. instead of leading with reason and truth, you rely on force.
>This discourse of yours, used to deceive ill-informed workers in the developed world with moralistic rhetoric, doesn't work for me.
yes, because you do not value truth or justice. you are an extremely wicked person who would preferably kill themselves so that they dont spread more of their poison into the world.
>State capitalism is superior to private capitalism
why? because the government does stuff. thats your worldview. more government means more gooder.

>marx was anti-socialist and pro-capitalist,
wtf

>>2515803
yes, read here, as directed: >>2510749

>>2515803
yeah we have a retard on a crusade to shit up the thread
dunno what is it with theory threads that brings out those dedicated idiots

>>2515812
read this: >>2510749
and tell me what is incorrect

Remember to ignore him

>>2515849
if you cant prove me wrong then i am right by default.
youre literally too afraid to talk to me which shows your admission of falsehood. for reference, i make claims here: >>2510749
which are able to be proven wrong by contrary evidence. if you have no counter-evidence, then my evidence us sufficient for the claims discussed.

>>2515849
>>2515851
as a basic counter-example, give me a single passage of marx ever calling himself a "socialist".

You heard that must be the wind

>marx was anti socialist and pro capitalist
this is what reading too much does to the mind

>>2515853
this is the opposite of "ignoring" me btw.
log off already, you parasocial loser
you have nothing to contribute

>>2515855
show me where marx ever calls himself a socialist

Yup it was the wind

>>2514275

Marx doesn't go far enough IMO. He goes on about this arbitrary distinction between "personal property" and "private property" but I think his (and most of Western society's) understanding of property is still incomplete - he treats it as a thing and not a relationship. What really makes a thing someone's property is they have a relationship to that thing. Possessions are relationships, not the things themselves. A person who lives in a house has a relationship with that house, they depend on that house and they fill it with all their belongings and make it their own and they care for it and nurture it like it was their child, they build this relationship for years and years. A real estate company that buys and flips old houses for profit doesn't have a relationship with the properties they manage, after the sale is over they don't live in them or think about them or even remember where they are or whom they sold them to.

>>2516184
>He goes on about this arbitrary distinction between "personal property" and "private property"
no he doesnt. its a false differentiation marxists have made but cant trace it back to marx. the difference marx creates is simply a class relationship to property. before capitalism, property belonged to more people by their own labour; under capitalism, property is appropriated as capital by surplus labour. property in itself remains the same, its only as you say, the relationship it has is different. marxists suggest that communism changes property relations, where the government takes the place of capitalists. this is why marx saw capitalism as progressive, since it socialisee the use of property in production, but centralised its ownership in private hands.
>A real estate company that buys and flips old houses for profit doesn't have a relationship with the properties they manage, after the sale is over they don't live in them or think about them or even remember where they are or whom they sold them to.
in lockean terms, this is an illegitimate form of property, since as you say, the legal "owner" has no relationship to it except a deed. lockeans would say that those who occupy and maintain the property are thus its rightful owners (by the "homestead principle"). squatters rights is a basic example. if people inhabit a vacant property, they gain conditional rights of stay.

>>2516197

This just seems like beating around the bush, I think the real issue is there is no such thing as "property" and our entire conception of property is problematic at its very core. Instead of trying to split hairs about what kinds of property are legitimate and not legitimate, how about we just admit that property is a bullshit idea to begin with and that humans don't really possess things, we just have temporary relationships to things.

>>2516203
X and Y have the same job:
X works 8 hours a day
Y works 1 hour a day
X and Y get paid the same.
is this fair? is this right? is this just?
if not, on what basis?

>>2516210
i literally preconditioned it by saying its the same job…
read it again and answer the question, please.

>>2516206
>>2516214
>X and Y have the same job:
>X works 8 hours a day
>Y works 1 hour a day
>X and Y get paid the same.
>is this fair? is this right? is this just?
>if not, on what basis?

Sorry, misread. If X and Y have the same job and "get paid the same" but one of them works 8 times more hours than the other, then obviously they don't get paid the same. It's the same thing as saying X and Y have the same job and work the same hours, but X gets paid only 1/8th of Y's pay.

>>2516250
is it fair that X gets paid only 1/8th of Y's pay?
if not, why?

>>2516253

It's not about what individuals do or get, it's about a system that is fundamentally unfair. A system of coercion and domination that forces people to give/rent their time/energy to another person is unfair, regardless of the pay or the benefits or the work conditions. A lot of individual slave owners were probably decent nice people and treated their slaves very well, fed them and cared for them like members of their own family, but the institution of slavery was still a crime.

>>2516269
now, now. no need for all this blustering.
a simple "no" would have sufficed.
now that we have established unfairness.
what exactly makes things unfair?

>>2516271

When you said "X and Y have a job" you could have stopped there and gone no further, it's already unfair that they "have a job" i.e. they have been coerced into renting their agency/dignity/humanity to someone else just to survive.

>>2516275
>it is unfair
what makes it unfair?

>>2515612
>to marx, the price of a commodity is its form of value in money.
Where does he say that.

>>2516197
>lockeans would say that those who occupy and maintain the property are thus its rightful owners (by the "homestead principle").
how did that work out for the native americans?

>>2515799
>marx was not a marxist. take it up with engels.
The text itself is related to Marx's criticism of Guesde and Lafargue, who were ignoring the need for struggle and mass agitation, using reforms to prepare the revolution by radicalizing the masses—hence the accusation of "revolutionary phrase-mongering." Let's look at the quote again if you forgot to read it:

<After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters arose over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply … as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” [4] Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”). [5]

<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n5

>im doubting your terminological legitimacy. marx exclusively refers to both precapitalist and capitalist property as "private property", with differentiation only referring to the class which possesses it. that is all. marx's historical example simply describes the transfer of ownership, not the qualitative change of property.
Have you forgotten the partially social character of bourgeois property, which destroys the old relations of production that are isolated by barriers so that the circulation of capital can function? Again, don't you realize that labor has a social character in production with private extraction in bourgeois private property?

Let's take another look at the quotes:

<To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

<Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

<When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), , Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

<Let us briefly sum up our sketch of historical evolution.

<I. Mediaeval Society — Individual production on a small scale. Means of production adapted for individual use; hence primitive, ungainly, petty, dwarfed in action. Production for immediate consumption, either of the producer himself or his feudal lord. Only where an excess of production over this consumption occurs is such excess offered for sale, enters into exchange. Production of commodities, therefore, only in its infancy. But already it contains within itself, in embryo, anarchy in the production of society at large.

<II. Capitalist Revolution — transformation of industry, at first be means of simple cooperation and manufacture. Concentration of the means of production, hitherto scattered, into great workshops. As a consequence, their transformation from individual to social means of production — a transformation which does not, on the whole, affect the form of exchange. The old forms of appropriation remain in force. The capitalist appears. In his capacity as owner of the means of production, he also appropriates the products and turns them into commodities. Production has become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all the contradictions in which our present-day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light.

<A. Severance of the producer from the means of production. Condemnation of the worker to wage-labor for life. Antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

<B. Growing predominance and increasing effectiveness of the laws governing the production of commodities. Unbridled competition. Contradiction between socialized organization in the individual factory and social anarchy in the production as a whole.

<C. On the one hand, perfecting of machinery, made by competition compulsory for each individual manufacturer, and complemented by a constantly growing displacement of laborers. Industrial reserve-army. On the other hand, unlimited extension of production, also compulsory under competition, for every manufacturer. On both sides, unheard-of development of productive forces, excess of supply over demand, over-production and products — excess there, of laborers, without employment and without means of existence. But these two levers of production and of social well-being are unable to work together, because the capitalist form of production prevents the productive forces from working and the products from circulating, unless they are first turned into capital — which their very superabundance prevents. The contradiction has grown into an absurdity. The mode of production rises in rebellion against the form of exchange.

<D. Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later in by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.

<III. Proletarian Revolution — Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.

<To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.

<Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Chapter III [Historical Materialism]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

>i dont confuse anything. freedom is a bourgeois concept which i seek to defend, from communists and capitalists alike.
Funny. It's already clear that you're a reactionary fantasizing about a past that never existed without realizing that capitalist competition has already destroyed the medieval barriers that isolated private property with generalized commodity production. It's a shame that, like all reactionary apologists, you'll only be a lackey of finance capital, only to be discarded as the petty bourgeoisie always will be if you don't accept the common interest with the proletariat.

It's funny that workers can fight to occupy land just as workers can occupy factories, and they will have the support of communists as they always have, while you must be just an alienated person who believes in the same private property that exploits and expropriates the masses with debt to private banks, capitalists, landlords, and landowners who need the state to exist. But you pretend to be some kind of rebel, but this makes no difference to me. Your rhetoric exists only to deceive the naive and co-opt the petty bourgeoisie to support the most parasitic part of finance capital.

Now I'll post a quote showing what happens when the petty bourgeoisie doesn't act on what it has in common with the proletariat:

<No one had fought more fanatically in the June days for the salvation of property and the restoration of credit than the Parisian petty bourgeois – keepers of cafes and restaurants, marchands de vins [wine merchants], small traders, shopkeepers, handicraftsman, etc. The shopkeeper had pulled himself together and marched against the barricades in order to restore the traffic which leads from the streets into the shop. But behind the barricade stood the customers and the debtors; before it the creditors of the shop. And when the barricades were thrown down and the workers were crushed and the shopkeepers, drunk with victory, rushed back to their shops, they found the entrance barred by a savior of property, an official agent of credit, who presented them with threatening notices: Overdue promissory note! Overdue house rent! Overdue bond! Doomed shop! Doomed shopkeeper!

<Salvation of property! But the house they lived in was not their property; the shop they kept was not their property; the commodities they dealt in were not their property. Neither their business, nor the plate they ate from, nor the bed they slept on belonged to them any longer. It was precisely from them that this property had to be saved – for the house-owner who let the house, for the banker who discounted the promissory note, for the capitalist who made the advances in cash, for the manufacturer who entrusted the sale of his commodities to these retailers, for the wholesale dealer who had credited the raw materials to these handicraftsman. Restoration of credit! But credit, having regained strength, proved itself a vigorous and jealous god; it turned the debtor who could not pay out of his four walls, together with wife and child, surrendered his sham property to capital, and threw the man himself into the debtors’ prison, which had once more reared its head threateningly over the corpses of the June insurgents.

<The petty bourgeois saw with horror that by striking down the workers they had delivered themselves without resistance into the hands of their creditors. Their bankruptcy, which since February had been dragging on in chronic fashion and had apparently been ignored, was openly declared after June.

<The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850, Part II, From June 1848 to June 13, 1849

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch02.htm

>this is literally false. it was kant who "first" defined freedom as necessity; the unconditional whose own condition is itself. the categorical imperative.
Again, you didn't even read the text I posted. It says that Hegel is the first to correctly state the relationship between freedom and necessity when talking about the individual. It seems to me that you see this as an abstraction outside of social relations.

In this case, I'll post more quotes to help you:

<Only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In the previous substitutes for the community, in the State, etc. personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only insofar as they were individuals of this class. The illusory community, in which individuals have up till now combined, always took on an independent existence in relation to them, and was at the same time, since it was the combination of one class over against another, not only a completely illusory community, but a new fetter as well. In a real community the individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association.

<Karl Marx, The German Ideology, Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook, D. Proletarians and Communism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com

<In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

<Karl Marx, 1859, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm

>You are talking to me using your own property.
Do you think what I am using to communicate is mine? Then you are being naive. The recognition of private property by the capitalist state has already expropriated this property from the masses since the beginning and even before capitalism. There is nothing sacred in any object that you think is yours by some fanciful "natural law" invented in your head.

>i dont care about your noble savages.
Just as I don't care about the parasitism of private property being expropriated by the masses, which is a historical construct that arose and will disappear. At least you recognized that your beloved private property has no eternal, sacred essence, and therefore, just as capitalism will expropriate with the pursuit of profit, workers will seize the means of production from capitalists, abolishing private property.

>>2515799
>doesnt exist. if everyone "owned" everything, there would no longer be property, since property is defined by exclusive ownership. to "own" everything would also mean possessing other people, so slavery, murder and rape would be permitted, since one would have no exclusive rights to himself. this is why rights depend upon the axiom of self-ownership.
Again, you are wrong. Property begins to exist in its social relation only in a society that is formed collectively. This society has never had an individual owner and is maintained collectively. Only with the advancement of the means of production, technological advancement, and greater social organization can private property eventually be formed by coercing others. But for this to occur, society must divide and create a separate institution, the state, because the contradictions between property owners, propertyless workers, and other property owners are irreconcilable and will lead to violence until the exploiting classes are extinguished and private property is abolished.

You gave me a good laugh with your fantasy of self-ownership, but you own nothing. Owning something exists only as a social relationship between people who are organizing collectively, not outside of it. If you become a slave, there's no natural law being broken because your fantasy doesn't exist in nature. What exists is the class struggle that creates rights, which are social constructs between the ruling classes and the workers fighting in accordance with their class interests with the ruling class's concessions until they have the power to take away the rights of the masses in accordance with their class interests. Therefore, you have no right to anything, no matter how much you whine. Just as a slave has the possibility of fighting against a slave master, a serf can fight against his landlord, a proletarian can fight against a capitalist, and any property will be appropriated as the class struggle progresses.

Let's take a few quotes to help you:

<With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organization. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man's own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history, pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.

<Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, III, [Historical Materialism]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

>When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

>In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

>unemployment is necessary. you want pensioners and children to work? marx supported child labour:
Let's look at Marx's economic programs to see if they match the passage you cited.

Starting with the part you didn't add:

<"Prohibition of child labor." Here it was absolutely essential to state the age limit.

<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Appendix

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

Then I present the political programs cited by Marx:

<10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

<1. One rest day each week or legal ban on employers imposing work more than six days out of seven. - Legal reduction of the working day to eight hours for adults. - A ban on children under fourteen years working in private workshops; and, between fourteen and sixteen years, reduction of the working day from eight to six hours;
<2. Protective supervision of apprentices by the workers' organizations;

[…]

<6. Scientific and professional instruction of all children, with their maintenance the responsibility of society, represented by the state and the Commune;
<7. Responsibility of society for the old and the disabled;

<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

<Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme

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

>will a hierarchy of intelligence and talent exist in a communist society? yes or no?
No. Because all scientists will receive public support for research, with the most ambitious projects that require the greatest resources being discussed collectively until a consensus is reached at the national economic level, rather than being at the mercy of capitalists who appropriate everything to pursue the logic of profit for capital accumulation. This organization does not exist based on any concept of intelligence, nor are other modes of production organized based on this. The hierarchy in capitalism exists for the purpose of serving capital accumulation and exploiting workers, not intelligence. This seems to me like another myth you tell yourself to justify the ruling classes under the guise of "meritocracy," just as the myth of the divine right of kings justified the ruling classes under feudalism.

>the purpose of the state is to protect property, as aristotle, locke and smith say - which is why aristotle wanted to redistribute property, to enfranchise citizens into the care of the state.
Você tem uma visão idealista falsa então. O estado é o instrumento para uma classe oprimir a outra e as ilusões da propriedade privada
You have a false idealistic vision, then. The state is the instrument for one class to oppress another and the illusions of private property are broken several times by appropriation as long as it serves the interests of the ruling class, capital has no capacity to accumulate if there are no losers in capitalist competition and the ruling classes have no interest in redistributing wealth without this being a concession due to the intensification of class struggles, but eventually the concessions will be withdrawn if workers become passive again or the bourgeoisie sees an opportunity for a greater offensive as profit rates decrease and capitalists see barriers to further capital accumulation.

>because it will belong to the government, who will then have the right to evict people from their homes.
Everything depends on the collective organization of society. The bourgeois state and the ruling class already have the right to expropriate you, but with the proletariat becoming the ruling class in proletarian democracy, you will have the right to housing, where the population will move according to their needs instead of being at the mercy of parasitic real estate speculation that makes housing unavailable as a place for shelter. Do you realize that this is why all land must become public for collective planning, the entire stock market must cease to exist, and all private banks must be nationalized and abolished? Remember that any public national bank must be removed from capitalist management and placed in a planning council run by workers without private profit. For this, a country's public bank can be used to facilitate the socialization of the economy, or by abolishing the capitalist state bank, another public bank can be created with similar functions to prepare for economic planning.

>You have to fight for what belongs to you. That's why it's in the interests of the American empire to demilitarize its subjects, just as it's in the state's interest to take away people's means of defending themselves.
Then the workers will be armed to organize together through popular militias in self-defense committees to defend their class interests and not depend on the capitalist state. They will defend strikes, sabotage, occupations of farms, land, factories, banks, media, transportation, and all means of production. As the new ruling class, the workers will expropriate all weapons from counterrevolutionaries, capitalists, reactionaries, and landowners who defend capitalism and the bourgeois state to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, distributing the seized weapons to other workers to facilitate the expropriation of the expropriators and their apologists. With this, private property will end without the police, the courts, and the military, which will collapse with the democratization and election of officers. As expected, your fantasy of private property will crumble with the intensification of class struggle and the irreconcilability of social classes in a society with private property. But don't worry, other nations will expropriate imperialism's collaborators to nationalize their natural resources, acquire technological sovereignty, sovereign industrialization, and food sovereignty. Eventually, the lackeys of capitalist imperialism who fantasize about private property will run for help to their masters of financial capitalism, which is what you are serving.

Don't worry, the arming of workers is in all the communist programs of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The institutions that maintain the capitalist state and private property will be cut so that the revolutionary situation arrives and the capitalist state enters into crisis.

>theres never been a communist intellectual who was working class. communism is about intellectuals ruling over society using the working class as slaves
Don't you understand that the intelligentsia, like the petty bourgeoisie, are part of the working classes? The proletariat, organized as a class, is the revolutionary agent that will abolish private property. The other classes, like the intelligentsia, must serve by acting for the domination of the proletariat. The revolutionary petty bourgeoisie must act with what it has in common with the proletariat. Even a capitalist can be a communist if he acts as a class traitor for the extinction of the capitalist class and human emancipation through the abolition of private property.

A slave is considered an object of private property to his master. Without private property, there are no slaves. Without the separation of society through private property, which creates social classes, where the state arises to maintain the dominance of this ruling class, there can be no slaves. However, reactionaries who fantasize about private property as a past that never existed and who wish to reverse even the rights of liberal revolutions will create slaves.

Let's take a quote from Engels:

<7 — In what way do proletarians differ from slaves?
<The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.

<The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.

<The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.

<The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.

<The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

>it is one. your politics are identity politics.
There is no moralism or outrage in what I wrote. I'm demonstrating class interests and that workers have interests antagonistic to capitalists, while you're trying to co-opt the masses to serve financial capitalism like every other lackey of capitalist imperialism, with your superstition of the sacredness of private property and wanting to ignore relations in the means of production with identity-based distractions, as if there's an essence in the worker. Tell me, where's my identity politics?

>which means concentration camps for thought criminals. instead of leading with reason and truth, you rely on force.
Funny, any enemy of the domination of the proletariat organized as a class can surrender and receive re-education to return to society, losing their antisocial tendencies to be just another worker, and I don't care about any outrage you may have. You serve no truth, being merely an apologist for the capitalist class to prevent workers from taking power following their class interests. All ruling classes use force and private property cannot exist without the constant use of force, threat and coercion, but unlike you with idealistic fantasies of the bourgeois and pre-capitalist state I do not hide that the state is the instrument for one class to oppress another and I do not spread the lie of natural law and fantasies of self-ownership that never exist except as propaganda to maintain the domination of the exploiting classes.

>yes, because you do not value truth or justice. you are an extremely wicked person who would preferably kill themselves so that they dont spread more of their poison into the world.
But I will continue to serve by agitating for the proletariat to follow its class interests and assume power by abolishing the bourgeois state as the new ruling class that will abolish private property and socialize the economy no matter what you find. Your fantasy doesn't exist, and you will eventually be discarded by your masters when you are no longer useful to them, but my opinion will not be changed by apologists for the fantasy of private property.

>>2515799
>why? because the government does stuff. thats your worldview. more government means more gooder.
State capitalism facilitates the planning and socialization of the economy if a country has its semi-feudal economy with a large amount of small peasant production following what Engels wrote:

<We, of course, are decidedly on the side of the small peasant; we shall do everything at all permissible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitate his transition to the co-operative should he decide to do so, and even to make it possible for him to remain on his small holding for a protracted length of time to think the matter over, should he still be unable to bring himself to this decision. We do this not only because we consider the small peasant living by his own labor as virtually belonging to us, but also in the direct interest of the Party. The greater the number of peasants whom we can save from being actually hurled down into the proletariat, whom we can win to our side while they are still peasants, the more quickly and easily the social transformation will be accomplished. It will serve us no reason to wait with this transformation until capitalist production has developed everywhere to its extreme consequences, until the last small craftsman and the last small peasant have fallen victim to capitalist large-scale production.

<Engels, The Peasant Question in France and Germany

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/ch02.htm

This is what Lenin said in 1923:

<Infinitely stereotyped, for instance, is the argument they learned by rote during the development of West-European Social-Democracy, namely, that we are not yet ripe for socialism, but as certain “learned” gentleman among them put it, the objective economic premises for socialism do not exist in our country… “The development of the productive forces of Russia has not yet attained the level that makes socialism possible.” All the heroes of the Second International, including, of course, Sukhanov, beat the drums about this proposition. They keep harping on this incontrovertible proposition in a thousand different keys, and think that it is decisive criterion of our revolution… You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?

<Lenin, “Our Revolution” (1923)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm

Lenin reiterates that it is feasable and necessary to implement measures of proletarian state-control, which is not socialism, but a step towards it:

<Under no circumstances can the party of the proletariat set itself the aim of “introducing” socialism in a country of small peasants so long as the overwhelming majority of the population has not come to realise the need for a socialist revolution.

<But only bourgeois sophists, hiding behind “near-Marxist” catchwords, can deduce from this truth a justification of the policy of post poning immediate revolutionary measures, the time for which is fully ripe; measures which have been frequently resorted to during the war by a number of bourgeois states… the nationalisation of the land, of all the banks and capitalist syndicates, or, at least, the immediate establishment of the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, etc., over them… which are only steps towards socialism, and which are perfectly feasible economically.

<Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution (1917)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/ch09.htm#v24zz99h-073-GUESS

Lenin also realized that in order to transition to socialism it was necessary to create a collective agriculture sector. He said in 1923, talking about agricultural co-operatives:

<As a matter of fact, the political power of the Soviet over all large-scale means of production, the power in the state in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc, …is not this all that is necessary in order from the co-operatives – from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly treated as huckstering, and which, from a certain aspect, we have the right to treat as such now, under the new economic policy – is not this all that is necessary in order to build a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building.

<Lenin, “On Cooperation” (1923)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Simple as.

>>2515799
>i dont confuse anything. freedom is a bourgeois concept which i seek to defend, from communists and capitalists alike.
a far cry from your previous claim that freedom is slavery lol guess its time to delete your post history again

>>2516184
this is a completely different topic of discussion than the post you are replying to. anon originally claimed (parapharsing) that Marx thought everything was peachy keen until capitalism came along. When it was demonstrated that this wasn't the case he called it "blither" then deleted his post or had his post deleted. Now you are replying with something completely different. Did you reply to the wrong post or are you the same anon shifting goalposts and refusing to admit that Marx never put forward some kind of notion that pre-capitalist society was wholesome?

>>2516966
We are getting close to this; the only problem is to somehow open everyone's eyes to the fact that we overproduce enough food and tools to feed the whole world over and over, and there is no point in backbreaking labor or sleepless desk jobs.

>>2516703
youve never even read the first chapter of capital
why are you in this thread?
>>2517016
what?
>>2516960
>social character of bourgeois property
aristotle already speaks of this dichotomy in terms of the public use of private property. the internet is a prime example.
>It says that Hegel is the first to correctly state the relationship between freedom and necessity when talking about the individual.
but he wasnt…
>Do you think what I am using to communicate is mine?
yes, you fucking retard. you bought it from someone else who used to possess it, now you possess it.
>>2516962
>you own nothing
according to marx, workers own their commodity of labour-power as a property exchanged for wages. was he wrong to assume this? was marx also feeding a reactionary fantasy? dullard.
>Therefore, you have no right to anything, no matter how much you whine
do workers have a right to what they create? i say yes, you say no. i support workers, you enslave them.
>No (a hierarchy and talent and intelligence wont exist)
right, so in communism everyone is exactly the same. this is what you believe. its disconnected from reality.
>Then the workers will be armed to organize together through popular militias in self-defense committees to defend their class interests and not depend on the capitalist state.
or the communist state. workers must repossess factories from capitalists and communists, as murray rothbard says.
>Don't you understand that the intelligentsia, like the petty bourgeoisie, are part of the working classes?
lenin specifically says marx and engels were part of the bourgeois intelligentsia you fuckwit. communist theorists are not part of the proletariat. the party and the people exist in contradiction to one another.
>I'm demonstrating class interests and that workers have interests antagonistic to capitalists
yes, including state capitalists (i.e. marxists)
>where's my identity politics?
you glorify an idol called "the proletariat".
>any enemy of the domination of the proletariat organized as a class can surrender and receive re-education to return to society, losing their antisocial tendencies to be just another worker, and I don't care about any outrage you may have.
you are a traitor of the working class yourself, so how does that square things?
>>2516965
>yes, i am a proud state capitalist
we know.

>>2516275
just wondering if you still wanted to define what fairness is. to me, fairness is found in a concept of reciprocal justice, where one gets what one gives. aristotle defined this in terms of the exchange of commodities as an example (nicomachaen ethics book 5, chapter 5). to incur a form of value (in marx's terms) is to create an equality between variables: (aX = bY). supply meets demand, and vice versa. this is best expressed by money: (X = £1) where buyer and seller receive no loss in exchange, but gain utility. this is what is mutually beneficial in trade therefore (since if there was no benefit, it wouldnt occur). aristotle sees injustice in what is given without reciprocity. for example, aristotle sees that "chrematistics" (usury) is the most hated form of "money-getting" because it is money making money (what marx defines as capital - MCM). the purpose of money to aristotle is to bring equivalence to trade, not surplus. to create surplus is thus to expropriate others, and so to receive what was not given in exchange. it is theft, in basic terms. thomas aquinas also defined things this way, stating usury to be an unjust price put upon goods, while what is equivalent is given by a "just price". this i speak on in more detailed terms here: >>2511621
justice then, is seemingly defined by fairness. one is rightfully owed what he gives in return. this basic concept then justifies who owns what (or property rights). to say that its "unfair" for X to get paid 1/8th of Y's wage for the same amount of work is thus to say that what is given to each is unequal of what they deserve. unfairness is the inequality of reward for the same task, and so unfairness is the theft of property.

this seems logical, no?

>>2517151
You are being very dismissive of >>2516965 which gave you some very good answers and reducing it to some strawman greentext. That is very lazy and lame of you.

Farming is rarely a one-person business so when Locke says the land becomes yours if your hands mix the land with your work blahblah what does your hands really mean.

>>2516203
>>2516712
Yeah Smith Anon is full of shit (as usual).

>>2517157

Most workers have little or no choice in what kind of work they must do to survive, they just have to take whatever they can get that pays the most liveable wage, whilst the employer is just looking for the cheapest and most exploitable people he can find to run his business. If the employee decides to quit it's not a big loss to the company, they can always find another employee. But if the employer decides to terminate the employee it's utterly devastating to them, this person has now lost their job and their security and their identity and their entire purpose for living. This is not a balanced power dynamic, at all.

>>2517519
but what makes capitalism unfair, exactly?
the principle must be grasped.
i suggest that in principle, profit can be seen to be a theft of what belongs to workers, but if we dont believe in rights to property, then we cant believe in theft.
>>2517472
name a single thing ive said which is incorrect.
(also, i would suggest you follow the line of reasoning that there is no property and run into the same wall as anon, where he was too scared to define fairness - why?)
>>2517430
what is there to add, exactly? you have already written that state capitalism is "progressive" without elaboration. i suggest its because in your worldview, more government = more gooder, and you submit to these terms. i already summed everything up many, many posts ago, so why continue on this point? to you, people freely associating is evil; people being controlled is good. you have a personality disorder which you project as a political orientation. proof of this is in the fact that you dont even proceed from a properly marxist basis, because you say random nonsense like "you own nothing", when property is the very basis of marx's analysis of capitalism. there is no wage labour without the worker being seen to possess his own commodity. slavery means being treated as property, being a worker means being treated as a property owner. the concept of property and commodities entail the same logic, as i have already demonstrated by classical liberal citation.

>>2517541
>profit can be seen to be a theft of what belongs to workers, but if we dont believe in rights to property, then we cant believe in theft.
Marx already resolved this contradiction. Workers are paid enough to survive and reproduce. But they produce through their labor more than they need to survive and reproduce. The capitalists lengthen the working day or increase the intensity of labor to ensure this. If they didn't, they would lose money, go bankrupt, and be driven from the market. The capitalists who survive are the ones who pay the average worker less than that average worker generates for the capitalist through their labor. The difference between the revenue and the wages paid out is the profit of the capitalist firm. The capitalist firm reinvests this profit into expanding production and hiring more workers. Marx's point isn't that the individual workers are entitled to take home the profit as wages, but that this surplus value should be socially owned and society should plan how to use it. The idea that the profit rate should be zero and each individual worker should take home 100% of the value his labor generates is the Lassallean ideal. Marx criticizes this in Critique of the Gotha Programme

>>2517541
>the principle must be grasped.

You're trying to understand it by reducing it down to its most fundamental components. But the way to understand something like this is to look at the bigger picture.

inb4 someone responds with their dialectical materialism bullshit

>>2517591
>Marx's point isn't that the individual workers are entitled to take home the profit as wages, but that this surplus value should be socially owned and society should plan how to use it.
yes, and so marx was a supporter of what we may call "state capitalism" (i.e. you still have wage labour, profit, "value" and "money", except that everyone works for the state instead of capitalists). i am against state capitalism so disagree with marx's totalitarianism.
>>2517594
what is the bigger picture im missing?
is profit theft? yes or no? if yes, why?

>>2517600
Please refer to Point 1a of this short introductory text before continuing
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
Tankyoo!

>>2517602
theft is already a phenomenon preconceived upon the social reality of property; that is the point. when we speak of theft or fairness, we logically accept the reality of property. if we dont speak of theft, then there is no basis by which one may argue against profit.

thus arises the counter-question: if there is no such thing as theft, then whats wrong with capitalism?

>>2517614
Again refer to point 1a, tankyoo!

>>2517616
oh, so youre another joker who has no actual input into this thread. please desist from replying to me. thanks.

>>2517617
What does point 1a of the introductory text say?

>>2517618
>Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in which things, phenomena are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each other.
thus, when i speak of THEFT, i do not speak merely of theft, but what is implied in theft, as the negation of property. theft thus entails what is deductive by retroactivity; we begin by negation to reveal the positive concept of property. if i were to begin by a first principle, i would discuss what is unitary in the notion of property; but if we begin by what is only implied from property's self-realisation (i.e theft, fairness, etc.) then we finally arrive at what completes these concepts by what underlies each. if we thus begin by the proposition "profit is theft", we imply something which is uncovered in the investigation of the claim.

>>2517629
>blah blah blah
Refer to → >>2517591

>>2517632
right, so youre an unserious wanker.
please log off.

Trying to break down complex chaotic systems like human society or markets into their fundamental components and make useful predictions that way is a fool's errand. There is no linear causal a->b chain from the individual actors to the emergent pattern resulting from all their collective indeterminate interactions. The actors are as defined by the system as the system is defined by the actors. You can't make any progress trying to reduce it any further than that.

>>2517636
>Agree with my retardation wanker! Waah
No

To put it more simply, there will always be givers and takers. You can't have one without the other.

Marxism is an attempt to separate the takers from the givers and have a society of only givers. But that's like trying to break a magnet in half to get two monopoles. It doesn't work that way.

>>2517658
should one ideally get back what they give?
>>2517647
>>2517650
(ignoring the self-contradictory attempt to simplify complex phenomena into single paragraph…)
weird how when it comes to answering the most sime questions, marxist morons suddenly have difficulty. but lets try to crack the case anyway:
(1) do capitalists expropriate the surplus labour of workers?
(2) if yes, then is it fair to characterise this as "theft"?
(3) if yes, then is the issue with profits that they are a form of theft?
(4) if yes, then what underlies your concerns are the property rights of the worker

>>2517660
>Marxism is an attempt to separate the takers from the givers and have a society of only givers.
in marxism, the state is the taker
the workers give everything to the government

>>2517661
Refer to → >>2517591

>>2517591
>Marx's point isn't that the individual workers are entitled to take home the profit as wages, but that this surplus value should be socially owned and society should plan how to use it.
Ah but what if I jam anything you say about society as it is right now into the torture device of my philosophy which consists of nothing but the half-digested legal categories produced by this very society and conclude I can't make sense of what you say? Checkmate.

>>2510247
>for example, stalin once said that a criminal is created by society, so he should not be punished so harshly, but society itself must be reformed.
literally true though.

>>2517600
>yes, and so marx was a supporter of what we may call "state capitalism"
It's important to distinguish between the state ownership of the means of production and state capitalism, which the anti-Marxist critique often conflates. Marx was not advocating for a system where the state simply takes the role of capitalists, continuing exploitation through wage labor and profit extraction. Rather, his vision was a transitionary phase from capitalism to socialism, which he described as the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the working class controls the state apparatus in order to dismantle the capitalist system.

<Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875

In Marx's analysis, capitalism inherently leads to alienation, exploitation, and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. The point of socialism isn’t just to replace capitalists with state bureaucrats, it’s to shift the control of the means of production into the hands of the workers themselves, democratically, at both the workplace and societal level. This would eventually lead to the abolition of wage labor and the withering away of the state into Communism:

<The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away.
<Engels, Anti-Duhring, 1878

Your concern seems to be about the potential for bureaucratic control and authoritarianism, but this is precisely what Marx warned against in his analysis of state power. The workers' state would ideally be an instrument to suppress capitalist opposition, not to reproduce the structures of capitalist exploitation. The goal is to create a society where labor is no longer a commodity, and where the surplus value is collectively used to meet the needs of the people, rather than being extracted for private profit in an unplanned and chaotic manner.

So, Marx wasn't advocating for "state capitalism" as we understand it today, or even "Staatsozialismus" as Bismarck implemented in his life time, he was advocating for a revolutionary transformation of society that would eliminate profit and wage labor as organizing principles. The end goal is a classless society without the need for a coercive state at all.

>>2517151
>yes, you fucking retard. you bought it from someone else who used to possess it, now you possess it.
Wrong again. I just use it; it doesn't belong to me.

>according to marx, workers own their commodity of labour-power as a property exchanged for wages. was he wrong to assume this? was marx also feeding a reactionary fantasy? dullard.
Property exists only as a historical construct in society, as a creation and organization of society, and with the formation of culture. Private property only emerged with technological advancement, where social classes could be created with the surplus produced and stored. In nature or outside of society, you own nothing. Remembering that workers pursue their interests, they acquire class consciousness by selling their labor power in capitalism. All of this developed historically and does not have the eternal essence you are trying to invent. The production of commodities is socially created and does not belong to an individual. The proletariat, when organizing collectively, realizes that all actions for the benefit of the capitalist's capital accumulation conflict with their own, and this intensifies the class struggle for their liberation, leading to the eventual overthrow of the capitalist state and the abolition of private property with the expropriation of the exploiting classes for the planning of collective property. You do not own anything per se; rights are won through collective organization and class struggle, not through any essence of self-ownership within you.

>Do workers have a right to what they create? I say yes, you say no. I support workers, you enslave them.
Workers do not have a right in nature, the ruling class determines rights according to its interests, the class struggle can lead to concessions in bourgeois democracy, but these rights will always come as conquests through class struggle and collective organization and not by whining that you have a natural right in your head, remembering that these rights of the bourgeois state can and will be taken away depending on whether the capitalist class wishes to intensify exploitation with the perception of passivity and weakness in the workers.

>right, so in communism everyone is exactly the same. this is what you believe. its disconnected from reality.
In a socialist society, there are physical and mental differences between individuals, but there is social equality. The organization of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its governance have nothing to do with intelligence. Although it can be said that a socialist state is closer to a meritocracy than a capitalist one because it gives workers the possibility of developing with regional and social equality without profit, unlike capitalism. This obsession with autism score seems to me to be a delusion, trying to justify the exploiting class with the myth of meritocracy.

>or the communist state. workers must repossess factories from capitalists and communists, as murray rothbard says.
Wrong again. Factories in a socialist society belong to the entire society. Furthermore, equal wages in workers' unions and their joint struggle with workers from other factories and sectors lead to a joint organization for collective interests rather than isolated ones for petty interests. In the various situations where the capitalist state begins to collapse with the advance of the dictatorship of the proletariat, factories are socialized and begin to act collectively without profit. This is due to the ruin that occurs, resulting in the inability to exploit the surplus value of workers and the entry of cheap production that causes capital to be unable to circulate, bankrupting the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, and spontaneously leading to the planning and socialization of industry. You can observe this in the Paris Commune where the Proudhians began to act like Marxists even in practice to eventually change politically, this you can observe in other revolutions, because the greatest militants will be communists only through the experience of the class struggle, when the bourgeois state enters into crisis and cannot maintain itself, private property begins to collapse in the midst of the violence that its contradictions create. The isolated petty bourgeoisie will eventually join collective work in cooperatives that will not compete with each other. Furthermore, those organizing the workers en masse will be the communists. While the isolated petty bourgeoisie will go bankrupt with the big bourgeoisie, will join the collective organization for collective work on public property, or will go bankrupt due to the cheap products that state-owned companies will flood the market to facilitate the bankruptcy of capitalists. This is without counting the expropriations that will occur en masse, where those who are not organized will end up being attacked by anarchists who will need more discipline. Of course, if a country is not completely industrialized with modes of production prior to capitalism in the countryside that are more isolated, then there will be a longer delay in socialization. But the workers will already receive the right to housing, employment, and organization of poor peasants among themselves so that they are not coerced by the more prosperous peasants who have the best lands and tools that were appropriated with the radical agrarian reform that communists are in favor of anyway, expropriating the capitalists and The landowners who are unable to exist without the henchmen who maintain private property.

Remember that workers organized as a class are confiscating and distributing these weapons to other workers, which will strengthen the domination of the proletariat, while, as always, the petty bourgeoisie will remain confused and isolated, their only choice being to act together for the domination of the proletariat or be used and discarded by the bourgeoisie. Don't forget that the various propertyless masses will receive weapons to accelerate expropriation.

You confuse the idea that private property and intellectual property have the ability to exist isolated from society without the state, but this is a fantasy.

>Or the communist state. Workers must repossess factories from capitalists and communists, as Murray Rothbard says.
Wrong again. Factories in a socialist society belong to the entire society. Furthermore, equal wages in workers' unions and their joint struggle with workers from other factories and sectors lead to a joint organization for collective interests rather than isolated ones for petty interests. In the various situations where the capitalist state begins to collapse with the advance of the dictatorship of the proletariat, factories are socialized and begin to act collectively without profit. This is due to the ruin that occurs, resulting in the inability to exploit the surplus value of workers and the entry of cheap production that causes capital to be unable to circulate, bankrupting the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, and spontaneously leading to the planning and socialization of industry. You can observe this in the Paris Commune where the Proudhonists began to act like Marxists even in practice to eventually change politically, this you can observe in other revolutions, because the greatest militants will be communists only through the experience of the class struggle, when the bourgeois state enters into crisis and cannot maintain itself, private property begins to collapse in the midst of the violence that its contradictions create. The isolated petty bourgeoisie will eventually join collective work in cooperatives that will not compete with each other. Furthermore, those organizing the workers en masse will be the communists. While the isolated petty bourgeoisie will go bankrupt with the big bourgeoisie, will join the collective organization for collective work on public property, or will go bankrupt due to the cheap products that state-owned companies will flood the market to facilitate the bankruptcy of capitalists. This is without counting the expropriations that will occur en masse, where those who are not organized will end up being attacked by anarchists who will need more discipline. Of course, if a country is not completely industrialized with modes of production prior to capitalism in the countryside that are more isolated, then there will be a longer delay in socialization. But the workers will already receive the right to housing, employment, and organization of poor peasants among themselves so that they are not coerced by the more prosperous peasants who have the best lands and tools that were appropriated with the radical agrarian reform that communists are in favor of anyway, expropriating the capitalists and The landowners who are unable to exist without the henchmen who maintain private property.

Remember that the workers organized as a class are confiscating and distributing these weapons to other workers, which will strengthen the domination of the proletariat, while, as always, the petty bourgeoisie will remain confused and isolated, their only choice being to act together for the domination of the proletariat or be used and discarded by the bourgeoisie. Don't forget that the various propertyless masses will receive weapons to accelerate expropriation.

You confuse the idea that private property and intellectual property have the ability to exist isolated from society without the state, but this is a fantasy.

Let's look at a quote:

<By 1871, even in Paris, the centre of handicrafts, large-scale industry had already so much ceased to be an exceptional case that by far the most important decree of the Commune instituted an organization of large-scale industry and even of manufacture which was not based only on the association of workers in each factory, but also aimed at combining all these associations in one great union; in short an organization which, as Marx quite rightly says in The Civil War, must necessarily have led in the end to communism, that is to say, the direct antithesis of the Proudhon doctrine. And, therefore, the Commune was also the grave of the Proudhon school of socialism. Today this school has vanished from French working class circles; among them now, among the Possibilists no less than among the “Marxists”, Marx’s theory rules unchallenged. Only among the “radical” bourgeoisie are there still Proudhonists.

<1891 Introduction by Frederick Engels, On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Commune

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com

It seems that apologists for the bourgeoisie like you will cease to exist in the revolution. The only ones who will have to fear the masses will be fools like you, who will be punished by revolutionary terror when the proletarian class assumes its political supremacy and you are expropriated for denying the domination of the proletariat as a class.

>lenin specifically says marx and engels were part of the bourgeois intelligentsia you fuckwit. communist theorists are not part of the proletariat. the party and the people exist in contradiction to one another.
Wrong again. When speaking of the working class in the singular, you can see how Marx and Engels are talking about the proletariat. But when Marxist texts speak of the working classes in the plural, they refer to the proletariat and other workers, such as the intelligentsia and the petty bourgeoisie. However, a communist can be of any class as long as they accept the domination of the proletariat, the abolition of private property, the end of the anarchy of production, and the end of the exploiting classes as capitalists and landowners. A capitalist who becomes a communist must accept class suicide and act as a class traitor against their class. You are again confusing being a communist as if it were an identity.

>yes, including state capitalists (i.e. marxists)
State capitalism has contradictions between the petty bourgeoisie and the rest of society, among other problems that are mitigated as the economy becomes more collectivized and socialized, until only public properties remain, which will eliminate profits because they are organized for the needs of the entire society, and cooperatives that will have an exclusive relationship with the state, not competing with each other. This is why state capitalism is something temporary, to prepare small, isolated peasants for cooperative work, industrialize, and connect the rest of the country's population, which still uses modes of production as small commodity producers in the countryside, lacking technology. The newly emerging proletarian democracy needs to educate the rest of the population to use large-scale production technologies if capitalism had not spread throughout the country to prepare for national economic planning, which also requires sovereign technology with production capacity independent of the bourgeoisie. This can be a very quick process; in current times, it is not even a problem when there is a revolution.

You don't know what state capitalism is and Marxists are not a social class, a public company that produces for the needs of the population without profit is not state capitalism.

>you glorify an idol called "the proletariat".
The proletariat is the revolutionary agent that will abolish itself with the abolition of social classes, but the dictatorship of the proletariat will continue until communism in its highest stage is achieved and there is global socialist hegemony.

Again with a quote:

<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

>you are a traitor of the working class yourself, so how does that square things?
How would I be a traitor if I favor the political domination of the proletariat organized as a class in the dictatorship of the proletariat? If a worker doesn't want to act in concert with other workers because of petty interests, wanting to be a capitalist or defend the bourgeois state and deny the supremacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he is being a class traitor defending the old order. If there is a joint organization of the workers' movement and a leading worker in a union refuses to accept democratization, conspiring with the bourgeoisie, he is being a class traitor and will be punished.
I don't care about your outrage; the revolutionary terror will be carried out anyway and will have my full support.

>we know.
As long as a country has pre-capitalist, backward modes of production, state capitalism will be used, while whatever is possible will be socialized. However, remembering that this is no longer necessary in the current times, where capitalism and industrialization have spread throughout the world, expropriation and socialization can therefore be achieved much more quickly throughout the economy with a communist revolution. I favor the abolition of private property, the anarchy of production, and social classes, with the dictatorship of the proletariat until the state withers away, therefore, what is expected as a communist, scientific socialist, and marxist.

>>2517600
are you also against republicanism? representative democracy in general? are you an anarchist? an ancap?
and you still haven't explained why you dont like dengism. seems perfectly compatible with keynes to me

>>2517151
>as murray rothbard says
lmfao

>>2518114
Wait he's now quoting that guy

>>2516184
> He goes on about this arbitrary distinction between "personal property" and "private property" but I think his (and most of Western society's) understanding of property is still incomplete - he treats it as a thing and not a relationship

Yet another lie. First you lie and say Marx thought history was fine until capitalism came along. then you get btfo. then instead of admitting, you make up some completely different shit about Marx never seeing the relations of production, when his entire framework literally focuses on relations of production. Didn't read marx award. made shit up about marx award. vibes based anti-marx argumentation award.

>political economy general
>looks inside
>autists and retards fighting
name is accurate

>>2518254

Yeah you're right that is what happened.

>>2518269
lol saved

>>2516197
>[distinction between "personal property" and "private property"] is a false differentiation marxists have made but cant trace it back to marx.

What?

<When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

<Association, applied to land, shares the economic advantage of large-scale landed property, and first brings to realization the original tendency inherent in [land] division, namely, equality. In the same way association also re-establishes, now on a rational basis, no longer mediated by serfdom, overlordship and the silly mysticism of property, the intimate ties of man with the earth, since the earth ceases to be an object of huckstering, and through free labour and free enjoyment becomes once more a true personal property of man. A great advantage of the division of landed property is that the masses, which can no longer resign themselves to servitude, perish through property in a different way than in industry.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/rent.htm

<That Saint Max [1] here again puts his nonsense into the mouth of the “social [liberals]”[2], as being the meaning of their words, is not “surprising”. He identifies first of all “owning” as a private property-owner with “owning” in general. Instead of examining the definite relations between private property and production, instead of examining “owning” as a landed proprietor, as a rentier, as a merchant, as a factory-owner, as a worker — where “owning” would be found to be a quite distinct kind of owning, control over other people’s labour — he transforms all these relations into “owning as such”. […four pages of the manuscript missing here…] political liberalism, which made the nation” the supreme owner. Hence communism has no longer to “abolish” any “personal property” but, at most, has to equalise the distribution of “feudal possessions”, to introduce égalité there.

<[1] Marx's mocking nickname for Max Stirner in The German Ideology, who he is refuting in this passage, some of which is lost.
<[2] Max Stirner's mocking nickname for Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03d.htm

>>2515799
>this is why rights depend upon the axiom of self-ownership.
does this apply to children? and if not who owns them?

>>2513547
Good answer. Couldn't have put it better myself.

>>2518217
>>2518114
>>2518136
>>2518269
👀 peep the theory:
https://panarchy.org/rothbard/confiscation.html
>>2518274
i speak of this here: >>2511621
children in aristotelian terms are "natural slaves" of their parents, which is a relationship codefied in law, where if a child runs away, they will be returned to their parent, for example. this designation of children as property is also why abortion is legal for example, since the owner of the child is granted the condition to destroy their own property. rothbard uses the example of a landlord evicting a tenant. if children are deemed to own themselves however, then abortion is necessarily illegal, since it is the unlawful murder of an innocent subject. the legitimacy we grant to factory farming or hunting pertains to the same conditions. meat is murder, but a murder of an object is different from a subject. there is actually an interesting historical case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(elephant)
where an elephant trampled a bunch of people and so was hanged by a crane after a lynch mob formed, as if they were legally punishing the elephant for a crime. its perhaps in the same principle that a bad dog can be put down. children as natural slaves are thus either/or (1) irrational and (2) dependent. a baby will literally die if it has no caretaker, for example. another way of putting it is, when should children gain the rights which adults have? this gradient signifies self-ownership.

>>2518273
>what?
marx is clear; property only changes its social character where it regards its class character. in every case however, property is property in itself. there is no form of property qualitatively different between what is "personal" and what is "private".
>>2518107
i just call myself a liberal, so am a republican in the manner of the bourgeois revolutions of 1776 and 1789 - republicanism i would define as "liberty, fraternity and equality" or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". dengism is certainly interesting and the idea of "special economic zones" is an idea pushed by certain people in the west, as a matter of experimentation. some even say that china has freer markets than the west, so it is all worth observing. i would even say that while china is more authoritarian, it is less totalitarian than the west. the only question is, can liberalism be saved from itself?
>>2518082
>Marx was not advocating for a system where the state simply takes the role of capitalists, continuing exploitation through wage labor and profit extraction
YES HE WAS!
in marx's lower-phase communism, there is still wage labour, "profit", "value", "money" and "commodities", except that the state owns all means of production. its capitalism, except that the state replace capitalists.
>Rather, his vision was a transitionary phase from capitalism to socialism
marx never uses the term "socialism" to describe his "co-operative society", only "communism". he was an anti-socialist, as i have already demonstrated.
>shift the control of the means of production into the hands of the workers themselves, democratically, at both the workplace and societal level
at the workplace? so marx advocated for worker co-ops with market competition? obviously not, you liar.
>The workers' state would ideally be an instrument to suppress capitalist opposition, not to reproduce the structures of capitalist exploitation.
marx preserves all facets of capitalist exploitation; theyre just reversed in form and content, as he says.
>>2518088
>I just use it; it doesn't belong to me.
(dont forget that youre directly contradicting marx), but tell me then, what would it mean to "own" something?
>Workers do not have a right to what they create
stop repeating yourself
>In a socialist society, there are physical and mental differences between individuals, but there is social equality.
what does this mean? as i say, the suppression of talent.
>Factories in a socialist society belong to the entire society
you mean the state? stop repeating my words.
>It seems that apologists for the bourgeoisie like you will cease to exist in the revolution
i have wrongthink so should be murdered; thats the basis of your petulance.
>when Marxist texts speak of the working classes in the plural, they refer to the proletariat and other workers, such as the intelligentsia and the petty bourgeoisie.
you like to use quotes, so where is this ever stated?
>The proletariat is the revolutionary agent
the proletariat are least radical class in all of human history. theyre not just slaves, but voluntary slaves. the bourgeoisie itself as agents of capital are much more revolutionary, since they melt all things into air. as we may read from marx's work, CAPITAL itself is the subject of history, the geist, with man being its object.

holy shit adam smith poster is a unironic liberal.

>>2518448
>he posted stonetoss
bruh

>>2513547
Well said.

I have often seen a short response simply equating personal property with what people possess in a physical sense, which is a good hint, but leaning too much into that aspect creates issues. If we have to put it in a few bullet points, we can have one point saying that we are against absentee ownership of houses and flats, but of course that's not entirely unambiguous (how much absence makes one really an absentee owner and so on). It's a bit like getting bald. At some point we say one isn't balding anymore, one is bald, even though there are a very few hairs left. And eyebrows are hairs too. There is some ambiguity in the concept of being bald, but nobody would say that the concept of being bald is an illusion or totally subjective and all in your mind. (Well maybe Smith anon would say that.)

>>2518536
youre just mentally masturbating
there is no difference between property which is "personal" and what is "private". marx himself makes no such distinction, except between two sorts of private property; that which is received from labour, and that which expropriates labour from workers. its not a relationship of kinds of property, but only of the distribution of property between classes.

>>2516703
>>to marx, the price of a commodity is its form of value in money.
>Where does he say that.
>>2517151
>youve never even read the first chapter of capital
Marx did not assume that in real life commodities exchange at their values (=SNLT ratios). It is a simplification at the beginning for the purpose of exposition.

>>2518539
>there is no difference between property which is "personal" and what is "private".
You are saying in reply to a definition given by post >>2513547 and agreed to in post >>2518536 that the definition does not exist. Do you have any idea how asinine you sound? Maybe you want to rewrite your response if your intent is to say that it's impractical. And you should give an actual argument and not just assertion.

>>2518598
>Marx did not assume that in real life commodities exchange at their values
you literally dont know what youre talking about.
please read marx before you make more replies.
as a basic example however, lets read this:
<It suffices to say the if supply and demand equilibrate each other, the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say with their values, as determined by the respective quantities of labour required for their production. But supply and demand must constantly tend to equilibrate each other, although they do so only by compensating one fluctuation by another, a rise by a fall, and vice versa. If instead of considering only the daily fluctuations you analyze the movement of market prices for longer periods, as Mr. Tooke, for example, has done in his History of Prices, you will find that the fluctuations of market prices, their deviations from values, their ups and downs, paralyze and compensate each other; so that apart from the effect of monopolies and some other modifications I must now pass by, all descriptions of commodities are, on average, sold at their respective values or natural prices.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm
so then, the "value" of commodities is what adam smith calls their "natural price", or equilibrium between supply and demand in the market.
>property
i dont quite follow your meaning.
to me and marx, "property" simply means that which one possesses. the separation between the property of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is a precondition of capitalist production based on wage labour. capitalism then is simply the monopolisation of the means of production by capitalists (as opposed to local producers) which marx sees as progressive (since with capitalism, ownership is centralised in the bourgeoisie, yet the use of the means of production is socialised by mass employment). marx then wanted this dynamic, but to replace bourgeois ownership with the state.

>>2518613
>to me and marx

are you guys best friends or something

>>2518642
enemies can often be more loyal than friends

Western philosophy has always been sort of clunky and clumsy when it comes to explaining the dynamics of complex chaotic systems like the universe and societies and markets. Marx takes the standard 19th century linear causality Western approach to understanding how anything works - he tries to break down markets into a set of basic fundamental forces and laws operating at the microcosm which you can examine to control and predict what will happen at the macrocosm.

The problem with this is, there is no linear causality in an emergent system; instead there is recursive duality. You have a bunch of individual elements interacting with each other to generate the emergent system, and the emergent system in turn influences the behaviors of the individual elements. So any major change you try to forcibly introduce will create a feedback loop, often with very unpredictable and chaotic results. How do you reform a system like this?

The ancient Taoist principle of wu-wei is an interesting way of understanding how to navigate emergent systems. Wu-wei means "effortless action" or "action through inaction" and it is a concept that is difficult to clearly define. It doesn't mean to "do nothing", it means to never force anything, to not try to control and plan everything, to be fluid and dynamic and in tune with the world so that you can do exactly the right thing in the right moment, to swim with the currents and use them rather than fight them, etc. It would be interesting to think about how to apply a principle like this to markets and what kind of effect that might have.

>>2518700
>Western philosophy has always been sort of clunky and clumsy
The rest is commentary

>>2518702

It's a shame that communist China was so hellbent on erasing its ancient culture and philosophy from existence, rather than incorporating it into their version of the Marxist paradigm or fusing elements from ancient Eastern philosophy with elements from Western Marxist philosophy to create something new.

>>2518742
Good news for you then, modern China has granted your wish

>>2518613
If you read your own quote carefully, you will see that Marx speaks there of long-run tendencies. And in Capital Volume 3 Marx claims that even these long-run ratios are not value ratios, but run systematically above or below based on whether the amount of dead labor (fixed in machinery and so on) relative to the living labor that sets it into motion is above or below the average.

>to me and marx, "property" simply means that which one possesses.
It certainly doesn't mean that to Marx, nor pretty much anybody except you. Try and see if you can get a second person to agree with you on this here (or on any other forum, regardless of its political bent). Property means the legal category of ownership. A thief can be in possession of something without being the owner because the item does not belong to him. An absentee landlord is an owner without being in possession (he might live on another continent even).

>>2518751
>you will see that Marx speaks there of long-run tendencies
yes, which you originally denied because youve never read marx 😮‍💨 and lets see how he ends the quote:
<I must now pass by, all descriptions of commodities are, on average, sold at their respective values or natural prices.
please stop pestering me with stubborn ignorance.
>Property means the legal category of ownership
do you legally own things? yes
do the rich legally own things? yes
therefore, property is a universal category. bye. 💅🏻
>>2518756
show me where marx said personal property ≠ private property. none of those quotes did, so i'll wait til round 2. or, you can just accept that "property" is a general concept, and it only changes with who owns what.

>>2518745

I think Taoism is very realist in the sense that it's all about seeing and accepting the natural world for what it truly is rather than impose any human order onto it. A market, especially a national market or a global market, is such an inconceivably complex and dynamic system that you cannot possibly hope to understand in its totality, so if you want to achieve some desired result you can only do it through a neverending continuous process of incremental non-coercive intervention and careful observation, it requires patience and restraint and, most of all, attunement. In other words, you have to be a gardener and not an engineer.

>>2518775
That's the sort of attitude people used to take towards 围棋; now – it's not solved nowhere near it –, but it might as well be

>>2518700
taoism seems explicitly market-minded, in that it seeks a balance between supply and demand without any external authority imposed, like the emporer, who rules best by not having himself seen. his analog of the knife sharpening itself to bluntness can be put on jevonian and austrian notions of marginal utility. a thing loses its value when there is too much of it; a paradox, such as aristotle presents, that water is better than gold, yet gold is more expensive. he says this is due to scarcity - would you have an alternative position? i really like todd mcgowan's lacanian economics: >>2390777 (You)
where he sees surplus value as a negative magnitude of what he deems "inutility" (but what can be rendered as jevonian "disutility" or the expenditure of labour). his idea is that the sublimity of the commodity is in the surplus enjoyment it gives us, by a phantasmatic "gap" between exchange-value and use-value (objet petit a). thus, what is generative is the void of uselessness attached to the commodity (he uses the example of how the vacuum seal of a product constitutes its surplus enjoyment by the degree of its emptiness; the same way that he says an apple iphone packaging is often preserved by people despite being useless; thus, the phone is useful, but what is "extra" valuable is what is useless (thus, we purchase what we cannot use). this appears similar to the tao; that it is its absence which is its presence. value to marx is similarly ephemeral, but comprises what we may call "subjectivity". value is something subjective to the extent that it is mutually recognised in sale; yet to marx there is also a "phantomlike" objectivity to value which we may adequately call "unconscious". it drives us to its own determination, but as todd says, what is unconscious cannot be *directly* realised, but only indirectly. this is why todd says that disutility must be sold as utility for it to be sublimed, in what it is not - thus as lap tzu writes:
<The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.html
once we name the thing, we lose it. so this is a potential criticism of "value"; that as a signifier of itself (i.e. $1 = $1), it loses itself to the signification. you can mend this in a hegelian way by seeing the value of something as the quantity of something else (X = Y), as jean-baptiste say and marx do. marx also says this:
<The commodity that figures as universal equivalent, is, on the other hand, excluded from the relative value form. If the linen, or any other commodity serving as universal equivalent, were, at the same time, to share in the relative form of value, it would have to serve as its own equivalent. We should then have 20 yds of linen = 20 yds of linen; this tautology expresses neither value, nor magnitude of value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
so then, (X ≠ X), in a similar manner to this:
<How then is the value, e.g., of a 12 hour working-day to be determined? By the 12 working-hours contained in a working-day of 12 hours, which is an absurd tautology […] Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
so then, a product of labour is not itself labour, or as engels writes:
<As an activity which creates values it can no more have any special value than gravity can have any special weight, heat any special temperature, electricity any special strength of current.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch00.htm#1885
so then, we may see the nature of indirect signification, such as in the way of the tao. a thing is measured by its labour content, but is itself not labour. value to marx thus is not something *in* commodities, but a subjectivity which is realised *between* commodities in exchange: (X = Y)/(Y = X), etc.

just some basic suggestions. hope they help. 😅

>>2518779

That's the thing. Realizing that "winning" and "solving" are not the same thing and the latter is not necessary for the former.

>>2518784
Yes that's my point, you don't have to model everything, just enough to win

Complexity is far more tractable to modern tools than you think at least if I understand your argument correctly

>>2518539
>there is no difference between property which is "personal" and what is "private".
Incorrect. Your attempt to erase the distinction between proletarian private property and bourgeois private property is classic maneuver of the vulgar, degenerate bourgeois political economist, designed to terrify the petty-bourgeois and most backward sections of proletariat with the lie that revolution means the seizure of toothbrushes. It is vulgar and deliberate revision of Marxist theory. In Communism, bourgeois private property rights are abolished and inalienable proletarian private property rights are established.
https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/202006/04/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html
>there is no difference between property which is "personal" and what is "private". marx himself makes no such distinction, except between two sorts of private property; that which is received from labour, and that which expropriates labour from workers. its not a relationship of kinds of property, but only of the distribution of property between classes.
Wrong. In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels clearly draw the line that you claim does not exist.
<The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.

>>2518796
>Your attempt to erase the distinction between proletarian private property and bourgeois private property…
woah! so theyre both forms of private property? almost as if thats what ive been saying the whole time 🫨🙄
anyway, thanks for finally agreeing with me. im sure this stupid spat can end now.
<The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.
what is contradictory in this to what ive said? bourgeoie property and "self-earned property" are both forms of private property mediated by class. it is the class relation which matters. thats all.

>>2518806
Personal property = Proletarian Private Property
Private property = (Bourgeous) Private Property

Hope that helped, bye 👋

>>2518808
marx never uses the term "personal property" to differentiate between bourgeois and self-earned property, but says both are private property:
<Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals. But according as these private individuals are labourers or not labourers, private property has a different character. 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm
so private property is individual, but simultaneously oriented by class. what is bourgeois or proletarian is still "private property", as it has been recently corrected in this thread after a series of denials.

>>2518598
>Marx did not assume that in real life commodities exchange at their values (=SNLT ratios).
>>2518613 (Smith anon)
>you literally dont know what youre talking about.
>please read marx before you make more replies.
>as a basic example however, lets read this:
(He quotes from Value, Price, and Profit.)
>>2518751
>If you read your own quote carefully, you will see that Marx speaks there of long-run tendencies. And in Capital Volume 3 Marx claims that even these long-run ratios are not value ratios, but run systematically above or below based on whether the amount of dead labor (fixed in machinery and so on) relative to the living labor that sets it into motion is above or below the average.
>>2518764 (Smith anon)
>yes, which you originally denied because youve never read marx
Another day with Smith anon having a mental breakdown, AKA another day ending in y.

>>2518860
>(you): Marx did not assume that in real life commodities exchange at their values
<(marx): I must now pass by, all descriptions of commodities are, on average, sold at their respective values or natural prices
contradiction.

>>2518862
<I must now pass by
Must now pass by what?

>>2518794

I've heard there have been obscure sects of Eastern Anarchism in China, Japan, Korea, etc. which apply Tao principles to economics and industrial society, but I haven't been able to find much information about it.

>>2518866
>Must now pass by what?
<"so that apart from the effect of monopolies and some other modifications I must now pass by…"

but to reiterate the point:
>(you): Marx did not assume that commodities exchange at their values
<(marx): commodities are, on average, sold at their respective values
this is called a "contradiction", or a coexistence of opposed variables within the same result. it proves your incorrectness, which may be further deduced to reveal that youve never actually sat down and read marx, meaning that you will say things which contradict marx's actual position. the lesson then is, dont speak about things you dont know about. thx. 😉

>>2518764
>show me where marx said personal property ≠ private property.
It's self evident in the first quote that the anon provided you:

<When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property.

Marx is clearly saying that when the private property, i.e. capital, i.e. the means of production, is seized by the proletariat, and in turned into the property of all members of society, personal property is not having the same thing happen to it. i.e. proles seizing means of production does not = communist party taking your toothbrush, refrigerator and clothes.

He is clearly distinguishing between capital (i.e. private property used to profit) and personal property (your toothbrush, your shoes, your physical body) here.

Just because he isn't saying it so specifically as a formulaic nonequivalence doesn't mean it can't be clearly inferred.

Regarding the second qutoe:

<Association, applied to land, shares the economic advantage of large-scale landed property, and first brings to realization the original tendency inherent in [land] division, namely, equality. In the same way association also re-establishes, now on a rational basis, no longer mediated by serfdom, overlordship and the silly mysticism of property, the intimate ties of man with the earth, since the earth ceases to be an object of huckstering, and through free labour and free enjoyment becomes once more a true personal property of man. A great advantage of the division of landed property is that the masses, which can no longer resign themselves to servitude, perish through property in a different way than in industry.

He is talking about how proletarian association, no longer mediated by the various forms of private property, turns the earth, no longer an "object of huckstering" back into the "personal property" of man through "free labour and free enjoyment." This is probably one of his earlier attempts at describing communism since it is from 4 years before the manifesto.

He is clearly distinguishing between the "mysticism of [private] property" and "personal property" a few sentences later.

In the third quote he is pointing out how Max Stirner, who, similar to you, ignores the difference between a capitalist owning something to profit from increased exchange value, and a worker simply owning something as a personal use value:

< instead of examining “owning” as a landed proprietor, as a rentier, as a merchant, as a factory-owner, as a worker — where “owning” would be found to be a quite distinct kind of owning, control over other people’s labour — [Stirner] transforms all these relations into “owning as such”.

He is clearly pointing out that the reason a capitalist owns a means of production as private property meant to be profited from is different from how a proletarian owns a spoon or a toothbrush or a hairbrush or a pair of shoes meant to be used, or perhaps a potato meant to be consumed as a means of subsistence.

Private property = means of production, capital, exchange values
Personal property = means of subsistence, commodities, use values

>>2518917
Dude you can't even comprehend that the same thing can be referred to by different terms

Your eyes may have moved across the page, you may have even heard words in your head as you did it or mumbled to yourself but you haven't read Marx because you can't read

>>2518933
>different terms
terms matter, and i am being loyal to marx's text while you are perverting it with memes disconnected from marx's actual words. why are you fighting against marx?
>>2518927
>He is clearly distinguishing between capital (i.e. private property used to profit) and personal property (your toothbrush, your shoes, your physical body) here.
no, he is distinguishing between what becomes public property (the property of the state) and private property (the property of individuals). we already have this dichotomy today.
>mysticism of [private] property" and "personal property" a few sentences later.
you are the one inserting the differentiation by your own modified quotation. the *actual* difference is the class character of the property; who owns it.
>He is clearly pointing out that the reason a capitalist owns a means of production as private property meant to be profited from is different from how a proletarian owns a spoon or a toothbrush or a hairbrush or a pair of shoes meant to be used, or perhaps a potato meant to be consumed as a means of subsistence.
the only difference is class.
>private/personal property
nope. marx never uses the term "personal property" to distinguish from "private property", as we may read here:
<Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals. But according as these private individuals are labourers or not labourers, private property has a different character. 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm
in all cases, individual property is private property, whether it belongs to a capitalist or worker.

>>2515586

State capitalism, at least to my understanding, means exactly what it says - capitalism managed by the state. Capitalism cannot survive without the state. In practice and by necessity, by accident or by design, every modern industrial society in the world became a state capitalist society in some form or another. North Korea is a state capitalist society where the state has total control over a central planned economy that leverages surplus capital for growth. The United States is a state capitalist society where private monopolies have control over a market economy and they leverage their surplus capital for growth while the state privatizes their profits and socializes their losses. US, Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, they're all state capitalist societies; they all follow the same business model, leverage surplus capital into perpetual growth, the difference is whether the state is the primary instrument of unaccountable tyranny or the private sector.

>>2518917
<"so that apart from the effect of monopolies and some other modifications I must now pass by…"
Yeah it is always so, aside from all the exceptions, which are always everywhere. Stunning rebuttal m8.

>youve never actually sat down and read marx
What's you reply to this then:
>And in Capital Volume 3 Marx claims that even these long-run ratios are not value ratios, but run systematically above or below based on whether the amount of dead labor (fixed in machinery and so on) relative to the living labor that sets it into motion is above or below the average.
Do you claim this to be false?

>>2518871
I've heard and read bits and pieces here and there, but probably not much more than you have

Could you post this as a new thread in >>>/edu/ please, by the time I might find anything, this thread will be long gone

>>2518448
>(dont forget that youre directly contradicting marx), but tell me then, what would it mean to "own" something?
I'm not the only person using this property that I'm using to communicate with you now; it makes no sense to say that this belongs to me when it's something that's shared.

>stop repeating yourself
Workers sell their labor power under capitalism and pursue their class interests in the class struggle, not for some essence. The proceeds of labor will be organized collectively and will not return to pre-capitalist property, isolated from each other or competing with each other in the capitalist market. With the socialization and seizure of the means of production, which, instead of existing for sale for market profit through the exploitation of surplus value, this entire product will serve the needs of society, with the worker receiving the means of consumption for their work only after deductions for the maintenance and expansion of the means of production, a reserve to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc., the costs of administration not belonging to production, which is necessary for the reproduction of labor from birth to the formation of a new worker, all collective needs such as education, public health, sanitation, transportation, media, infrastructure maintenance, culture, community, leisure, and research that return to society, and funds for those unable to work.

You're confusing the proletariat's struggle to emancipate humanity with becoming petty bourgeois and cooperative workers competing with each other to enrich themselves.

>what does this mean? as i say, the suppression of talent.
Without the problem of scarcity and workers having formed discipline working together, all humanity will be able to express itself and change its interests with technological advancement, which will give it much more free time, following the motto "from each according to its ability, to each according to its needs." For this, you need a level of abundance produced along with polytechnic education. If you're interested in researching something for scientific advancement, nothing will stop you, so I don't see the problem. Remembering that communism in its high stage is a process where as the contradictions that create the state disappear, it withers over time and this will not happen immediately, the entire population will already receive education at all levels even in communism in its low stage with public funds for research, so there is no suppression of talent because intellectual property does not exist and there is no dependence on capitalists or profit for scientific research and technical education on machines with public workshops ends any other problem.

>you mean the state? stop repeating my words.
By seizing the factories, the proletariat will organize itself on a large scale into an industrial council that will join with large-scale workers' organizations to participate in national economic planning with the entire society in the proletarian democracy that will be the socialist government that has no separation from the workers' society. In this society, there are no means of accumulating capital because there is no private property, nor a stock market to profit from. Therefore, there is no surplus value, there is neither sale nor purchase in the market for profit. Instead, everything is produced for the use value of the population's needs and the collective economic plan. Remembering that there is a difference between state property in a bourgeois state, which does not exist outside of maintaining the profits of capital accumulation. It exists to serve as a support to facilitate the accumulation of capital by capitalists for sale in the market, and state property in a dictatorship of the proletariat that has just begun, which will democratize all administration and be used as a support to expropriate, occupy, collectivize, nationalize, and socialize private property. Just as bourgeois revolutions erased feudal property records, the communist revolution will erase those of private property. You imagine the human being as if he were atomized, separated from society. What is socially created must be socially organized. But even if you want to isolate yourself from society, you will go bankrupt when the masses begin to consume cheap public products, with the losses being equalized in what was socialized for you to go bankrupt. But don't worry, employment is guaranteed in a socialist society.

>i have wrongthink so should be murdered; thats the basis of your petulance.
This depends on whether you are preventing the transformation of society as a counterrevolutionary or not. Even if you act as a counterrevolutionary, your surrender will be considered in your re-education to be a common worker. But of course, those who resist the political domination of the proletariat will be punished. Do you think an isolated, antisocial petty-bourgeois like you has any chance against the working masses organized for the domination of the proletariat? Perhaps you are even a financial market speculator, and everything you have speculated with parasitism will be worthless with the seizure of the banks and the stock market being thrown in the trash. Remember, the poor working masses will receive weapons seized by the enemy class of capitalists, their agents, the bourgeois state, and the bourgeois state itself, to arm and train these working masses for the overthrow of the capitalist state and the abolition of private property. You pretend to be some rebel thinking that private property has the possibility of existing outside the state while I laugh at yet another counterrevolutionary who will be expropriated.

>you like to use quotes, so where is this ever stated?
Here's a quote clearly referring to working-class intelligentsia by Lenin:

<Where are the facts proving that the overwhelming majority of the working-class intelligentsia support the liquidators?

<V. I. Lenin, The Working-Class Masses and the Working-Class Intelligentsia

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/nov/00.htm

Here you can see a rejection of seeing the intelligentsia as independent:

>To class the intelligentsia, in contrast to the Zemstvo people, etc., as bourgeois democrats is sheer nonsense. To call on them to become an “independent force” (No. 77, Iskra’s italics) is claptrap. The real basis of broad democracy (the peasants, handicraftsmen, etc.) is ignored here, as are also the Socialist-Revolutionaries, who are the natural and inevitable left elements of the radical intelligentsia. I can only outline these propositions here, as it is necessary to deal with them in greater detail in the press.

>V. I. Lenin, 1905, To: A COMRADE IN RUSSIA

https://www.marxists.info/archive/lenin/works/1905/jan/06c.htm

Here he demonstrates the proletariat as the class that will lead the working and exploited peoples:

>The overthrow of bourgeois rule can be accomplished only by the proletariat, the particular class whose economic conditions of existence prepare it for this task and provide it with the possibility and the power to perform it. While the bourgeoisie break up and disintegrate the peasantry and all the petty-bourgeois groups, they weld together, unite and organize the proletariat. Only the proletariat — by virtue of the economic role it plays in large-scale production — is capable of being the leader of all the working and exploited people, whom the bourgeoisie exploit, oppress and crush, often not less but more than they do the proletarians, but who are incapable of waging an independent struggle for their emancipation.

<Vladimir Lenin's, 1917, The State and Revolution, Chapter 2: The Experience of 1848-51

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch02.htm

Let's see the term working classes in the plural with Engels then:

<3 — Proletarians, then, have not always existed?
<No. There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions.

[…]

<6 — What working classes were there before the industrial revolution?
<The working classes have always, according to the different stages of development of society, lived in different circumstances and had different relations to the owning and ruling classes.

<In antiquity, the workers were the slaves of the owners, just as they still are in many backward countries and even in the southern part of the United States.

<In the Middle Ages, they were the serfs of the land-owning nobility, as they still are in Hungary, Poland, and Russia. In the Middle Ages, and indeed right up to the industrial revolution, there were also journeymen in the cities who worked in the service of petty bourgeois masters. Gradually, as manufacture developed, these journeymen became manufacturing workers who were even then employed by larger capitalists.

<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

>the proletariat are least radical class in all of human history. theyre not just slaves, but voluntary slaves. the bourgeoisie itself as agents of capital are much more revolutionary, since they melt all things into air. as we may read from marx's work, CAPITAL itself is the subject of history, the geist, with man being its object.
The bourgeoisie stopped being revolutionary a long time ago when confronted by the proletariat. It has no interest even in advancing the rights of bourgeois democracy, having absorbed the reactionaries to serve finance capital. It has become conservative out of fear of the proletariat. It is the working masses who acquire their rights in the class struggle, but the ruin of the petty bourgeoisie that you fantasize about is inevitable. You are anthropomorphizing capital, which is not separate from social relations, remembering that eventually the capitalists will intensify the class struggle to overthrow them, and there is no third way or class conciliation. I accept this truth, while you, after fantasizing that there is a force beyond the domination of the proletariat or the domination of the capitalist class, are now surrendering to the capitalist class that will expropriate the masses, who will have no choice but to accept the fight for the abolition of private property, democratizing the entire economy, and organizing collectively for the domination of the proletariat. This puts an end to the theatrics of the false rebel you were pretending to be.

>>2518813
>so private property is individual
this isn't the distinguishing factor of "private", its not that the ownership is individual its that the products of production are. private property means productive real estate, it refers to means of production held privately rather than publicly. you could just as easily have property held by a group of people and it would still be private if that group isn't the whole public.

>>2518927
>Just because he isn't saying it so specifically as a formulaic nonequivalence doesn't mean it can't be clearly inferred.
exactly

>>2518448
>i have wrongthink so should be murdered; thats the basis of your petulance.
but you are a liberal? dont you believe in democracy?

>>2518598
>It is a simplification at the beginning for the purpose of exposition.
marx even says so explicitly but this is smithanons #1 tactic. he thinks context and building up an argument is black magic and that he alone found a logical hole in marx's argument that anyone who disagrees is trying to trick him with word games. he will just endlessly quote marx out of context and deny forever
>>2518756
>reasserted his bullshit
yeah i already had this exact conversation months ago

personal property becomes private when you buy commodified labor power to use the personal property to generate you a profit. if you own a hammer, you have personal property. if you hire someone else to use your hammer to make you money, it is private property.

>>2519502
>this is smithanons #1 tactic. he thinks context and building up an argument is black magic

exactly yeah, for example in the first year of studying physics, the concepts are often presented in a way that makes them more digestible for beginners, but this leads to several oversimplifications that are corrected or expanded upon in later years as students gain a deeper understanding. marx does this in his own corpus and smithanon mad.

>>2519666
Dark Triad, 666!

>>2519674
I want an anime with this as the premise.

>>2518448
>i just call myself a liberal, so am a republican in the manner of the bourgeois
but this is completely out of line with rothbard, who is an anarchist-capitalist. do you refuse the principle that market competition leads to regulatory capture and that the state and capital reinforce each others power? or do you agree with rothbard that monopolies only happen because of states? you cant believe that and also be a liberal republican. if market competition does lead to regulatory capture and if you are a keynesian liberal as you claimed before then it is necessary for the state to regulate monopolies but that directly contradicts what you propose here. and we again know from historical precedent that monopolies overcome trust busting and reassert themselves as the logic of market competition necessarily leading to reconsolidation. so it would seem the solution is that once a service or industry becomes necessary for social life that it should be nationalized, and this is how dengism/swcc operates. as you say markets in china are freer among competitive enterprises, and this freedom is facilitated by democratic control of socially necessary inputs from state owned monopolies. the numbers dont lie communism is objectively superior if freedom is your goal, which doesn't seem as much of a principle for you as yet another thing you inconsistantly and opportunistically throw out. tell me mister smith if unregulated markets are so good then why wasn't america able to secure and develop its own rare earths industry?
>would define as "liberty, fraternity and equality"
but you said freedom is slavery and a communist trick to enslave people. it would seem you change your ideology however it is convenient in the moment and dont really believe anything, unless its actually the case that you hold multiple mutually exclusive things at the same time.
>>2518446
>children in aristotelian terms are "natural slaves"
ah i see so you want to abolish child work so that they can be slaves? does the principle of self ownership mean you have a righ to sell yourself into slavery? and do you also agree with rothbard that there should be a market for child slaves where parents can sell their property? at least you didn't say children can consent, however if children are objects then its okay to murder them right? im not sure if that is any better, but i do wonder, do you think there are any limits on what owners can do to their 'private property' or is it that those limits the totalitarianist statism you are so fearful of? i cant imagine the horror you must feel at the idea of a democratic populace imposing its will on you to dismantle child breeding slave farms. truly 1984 wrongthink doublespeak authoritarianismo very scary and sad that these jealous petulant commies are so mean for taking your freedoms :(

>>2518448
>i have wrongthink so should be murdered; thats the basis of your petulance.
no you'll just work

>>2518956
>commodities never sell at their values
you simply disagree with marx. why not just say it?
>capital vol. 3
the rate of profit equalises across industry to marx to give exchange-values at the social average of their capital composition (i.e. the general rate of profit):
<Hence, the rate of profit is the same in all spheres of production, for it is equalized on the basis of those average spheres of production which have the average composition of capital. Consequently, the sum of the profits in all spheres of production must equal the sum of the surplus-values, and the sum of the prices of production of the total social product equal the sum of its value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch10.htm
>>2519178
>cant define ownership
bad start.
>Workers sell their labor power under capitalism and pursue their class interests in the class struggle, not for some essence.
they work for wages (their property), not your fanfiction.
>You're confusing the proletariat's struggle to emancipate humanity with becoming petty bourgeois and cooperative workers competing with each other to enrich themselves.
🤣🤣 you think workers thinking about liberating humanity, or about themselves? the interest of workers is inherently petty-bourgeois. deal with it.
>You imagine the human being as if he were atomized, separated from society.
no, i imagine a society separated from the state. you confuse society with the state, like ᴉuᴉlossnW.
>Here's a quote clearly referring to working-class intelligentsia by Lenin
and here's a quote by lenin referring to marx and engels belonging to the BOURGEOIS intelligentsia:
<By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia.
now shut the fuck up.
>Here he demonstrates the proletariat as the class that will lead the working and exploited peoples
was lenin proletarian? did he survive from wage labour?
>The bourgeoisie stopped being revolutionary a long time ago when confronted by the proletariat
not at all. give some examples of revolutionary proletarians.

>>2519767
>but this is completely out of line with rothbard
rothbard also says that the state should nationalise corporations. he is seemingly out of line with himself in that article, by being consistent with liberal values. thats the point.
>or do you agree with rothbard that monopolies only happen because of states?
this is also marx's opinion of "primitive accumulation". what causes monopoly today? intellectual property - not market competition, but the erasure of competition.
>so it would seem the solution is that once a service or industry becomes necessary for social life that it should be nationalized
right, so you agree with rothbard, congratulations.
>the numbers dont lie communism is objectively superior if freedom is your goal
china is a capitalist country. do markets and money exist in a communist society? no.
>if unregulated markets are so good
markets should be regulated. i never said otherwise.
>but you said freedom is slavery
where?
>ah i see so you want to abolish child work so that they can be slaves?
no, children are naturally slaves. that is the meaning. you cannot make a child free, but only supervise them toward freedom. and school as we know it is itself a form of antiquated child labour, which would optimally be replaced by vocational schools, so that as apprentices they could even earn their own money as a way of facilitating their developing freedom. plato speaks about general and vocational education in the republic. not all are suited to a general education, which is why as we get older, we begin to specialise anyway. the platonic fantasy of the state "guardian" is imposed onto the general public, when it was never intended to be so. the guardians are a specific class.
>does the principle of self ownership mean you have a righ to sell yourself into slavery?
workers do it every day
>and do you also agree with rothbard that there should be a market for child slaves where parents can sell their property?
theyre called orphanages, where children are speculated on by potential customers.
>at least you didn't say children can consent, however if children are objects then its okay to murder them right?
in our culture, only if theyre in the womb.
>do you think there are any limits on what owners can do to their 'private property'?
can do, or may do? description versus prescription.
>i cant imagine the horror you must feel at the idea of a democratic populace imposing its will on you to dismantle child breeding slave farms.
if its democratic, then its permitted (since markets are also democratic constructs). communism is not demo-cratic since it confiscates the property away from the demos (citizens), placing it in the hands of the state.

>>2519773
>no you'll just work
right, so all who disagree with the dear leader get put in a concentration camp where their slave labour is extracted. very progressive.
>>2519663
>personal property becomes private
nope, there is no difference. read marx instead of making up bullshit in your head.
>>2519266
>this isn't the distinguishing factor of "private" property
lets read marx:
>Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm
okay, so you disagree with marx.
>>2519270
the power of the demos (citizenry) is presupposed for their rule. as aristotle says, the state is a class construct, or of those who possess power in property against those who dont. to have a democracy then is to distribute property to the citizenry, as aristotle advocated for.

>>2519819
>what causes monopoly today? intellectual property - not market competition, but the erasure of competition.
competition leads to centralization. you still can't square the circle. austrian economics is premised on denial of objective reality. competition leads to centralization leads to monopoly. this is inevitable. the IP/patent law aspect of it is only the aftermath the cements legally what has already occurred in reality. did microsoft devise the Windows operating system and capture market share first or did they patent the idea of an operating system first? did google devise their search engine first or did they patent the idea of a search engine first? stop obfuscating. all these companies made products that engaged in fierce competition with others for market share before developing a monopolistic position.

>>2519822
>competition leads to centralization
yes and big businesses fail, leading smaller companies to appropriate the capital which is unsustainable in its cumulative employment. if there were no state subsidies, many companies would shrink. you must agree with this.

lets see once and for all, marx's dichotomy of property:
first is early marx in 1844:
>The subjective essence of private property – private property as activity for itself, as subject, as person – is labor […] The relations of private property contain latent within them the relation of private property as labor, the relation of private property as capital, and the mutual relation of these two to one another […] The character of private property is expressed by labor, capital, and the relations between these two.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/second.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/third.htm
next is later marx, 23 years later (what has changed?):
>Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals. But according as these private individuals are labourers or not labourers, private property has a different character.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm
>Political economy confuses on principle two very different kinds of private property, of which one rests on the producers’ own labour, the other on the employment of the labour of others. It forgets that the latter not only is the direct antithesis of the former, but absolutely grows on its tomb only […] the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of self-earned private property; in other words, the expropriation of the labourer.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm
hmm. it appears that nothing at all has changed. marx regards labour as the "essence" of private property, in the exact same manner that locke does (1690):
<Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.
The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm
so then, marx's idea of property is lockean… or is it? a good question to ask is when private property as a social relation began. was it in capitalism, or not?
>It can find expression in this first form even without the advanced development of private property (as in ancient Rome, Turkey, etc.)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
<the various original types of Roman and Teutonic private property are deducible from different forms of Indian common property
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
oh, so private property is an ancient institution. but okay, there is private property in this case, but what of commodities? locke (1690) and petty (1662) infer that "wealth" comes from labour, but is this a continuity within the concept of property, as i have already stated?
>[the worker] must constantly look upon his labour-power as his own property, his own commodity, and this he can only do by placing it at the disposal of the buyer temporarily, for a definite period of time. By this means alone can he avoid renouncing his rights of ownership over it […] Property […] only of what is his own […] labour-power takes in the eyes of the labourer himself the form of a commodity which is his property.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
<But money itself is a commodity, an external object, capable of becoming the private property of any individual. Thus social power becomes the private power of private persons. The ancients therefore denounced money as subversive of the economic and moral order of things.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm
so commodities and money to marx count as a form of private property, all the way from ancient times, as has already been stated in the case of the romans. so then, my own analysis of property from a lockean basis (as i write here): >>2511621
is entirely consistent with marx's (since we're both gentleman and not fiends feasting on hallucination). the essence of private property is labour, whose rights of possession belong to the individual who claims it. but what of "public property"? surely its no analog to marx:
>The essence of a free colony, on the contrary, consists in this – that the bulk of the soil is still public property, and every settler on it therefore can turn part of it into his private property […] How, then, to heal the anti-capitalistic cancer of the colonies? If men were willing, at a blow, to turn all the soil from public into private property, they would destroy certainly the root of the evil, but also – the colonies.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm
so marx sees "public property" as opposed to "private property" in the precise manner that i have written of. almost as if this whole time i was just reading marx back to marxists and they were getting furious at marx's own words. again, why fight marx if you are a marxist?

to summarise marx's idea of property relations:
external relations: public vs private (state vs citizen)
internal relations: labour vs capital (worker vs capitalist)

so then, the internal relations of private property merely concern the class relations of property owners (not the status of property in itself, the essence of which is labour). if we then regard capitalists as robbing the worker, we have a formula by which private property has its internal contradiction, and thus, of how it may be resolved: either (1) by stealing the property of the worker altogether, or (2) by granting the worker his rightful property. this is a standard proposition which fails to be taken on by marxists - but lets understand; marxists dont merely fail to read marx, but actively fight marx when they do read him, and shoot the messenger whenever they are able. its madness. why call yourself a marxist at all if you HATE what marx writes??? 🙄🤕😮‍💨

>>2519824
the only thing state subsidies do is allow for all these companies to artificially inflate their stock valuations. none of these companies would go bankrupt from lack of state subsidies because their products are so entrenched in the market. this is just more proof of how intellectually vacuous libertardians are. imagine if tomorrow Apple stopped receiving subsidies. would they go bankrupt? no. but libertardians pretend they would to try to maintain their objectively false worldview that big business is a product of government intervention. wal mart started as a family-owned local corner shop. all these companies started small and then grew into behemoths and it was only then they started regulatory capture. libertardians inverse this and claim that they captured the government first and then became big. stupid stupid stupid.

>>2519826
>state subsidies dont actually help companies
>pro-monopoly laws dont help companies
what can i say to this stunning ignorance?
but as thought-experiment, what do you think would happen if all patents were erased, copyright suspended and subsidies denied? things would stay the same?

>>2519829
>ur wrong
i should have expected as much from a libertardian. way to avoid addressing any arguments and just feigning outrage.
>what do you think would happen if all patents were erased, copyright suspended and subsidies denied? things would stay the same?
considering that every country's industrialization process has historically been launched through disobeying patent law and blatantly stealing foreign innovations so their national bourgeoisie could devise their own private monopolies, i'd suggest that the historical evidence is in favor of patent law not doing shit to stop monopolies.

adam smith anon is a libertardian? christ or is this a different anon?

>>2519832
>every country's industrialization process has historically been launched
what? why are you historicising it? if today, all copyright laws were abolished, what would happen? according to you, nothing meaningful - which is a self-evidently absurd statement. it proves itself wrong.