Previous thread:
>>2298757Links:Previous Thread ArchivesThread 1
https://archive.ph/ROnpOThread 2
https://archive.ph/f29PoThread 3
https://archive.ph/GZj20Youtube PlaylistsAnwar Shaikh - Historical Foundations of Political Economy
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTMFx0t8kDzc72vtNWeTP05x6WYiDgEx7Anwar Shaikh - Capitalism: Competition, Conflict and Crises
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1goAnwar Shaikh - Capitalism
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLz4k72ocf2TZMxrEVCgpp1b5K3hzFWuZhCapital Volume 1 high quality audiobook from Andrew S. Rightenburg (Human-Read, not AI voice or TTS voice)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUjbFtkcDBlSHVigHHx_wjaeWmDN2W-h8Capital Volume 2 high quality audiobook from Andrew S. Rightenburg (Human-Read, not AI voice or TTS voice)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUjbFtkcDBlSxnp8uR2kshvhG-5kzrjdQCapital Volume 3 high quality audiobook from Andrew S. Rightenburg (Human-Read, not AI voice or TTS voice)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUjbFtkcDBlRoV5CVoc5yyYL4nMO9ZJzOTheories of Surplus Value high quality audiobook from Andrew S. Rightenburg (Human-Read, not AI voice or TTS voice)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUjbFtkcDBlQa-dFgNFtQvvMOgNtV7nXpPaul Cockshott - Labor Theory of Value Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKVcO3co5aCBnDt7k5eU8msX4DhTNUilaPaul Cockshott - Economic Planning Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKVcO3co5aCDnkyY9YkQxpx6FxPJ23joHPaul Cockshott - Materialism, Marxism, and Thermodynamics Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKVcO3co5aCBv0m0fAjoOy1U4mOs_Y8QMVictor Magariño - Austrian Economics: A Critical Analysis
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpHi51IjLqerA1aKeGe3DcRc7zCCFkAoqVictor Magariño - Rethinking Classical Economics
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpHi51IjLqepj9uE1hhCrA66tMvNlnIttVictor Magariño - Mathematics for Classical Political Economy
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpHi51IjLqepWUHXIgVhC_Txk2WJgaSstGeopolitical Economy Hour with Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson (someone says "he's CIA doing reheated Proudhonism" lol)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7ejfZdPboo&list=PLDAi0NdlN8hMl9DkPLikDDGccibhYHnDPPotential Sources of InformationLeftypol Wiki Political Economy Category (needs expanding)
https://leftypedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:Political_economySci-Hub
https://sci-hub.se/aboutMarxists Internet Archive
https://www.marxists.org/Library Genesis
https://libgen.is/University of the Left
http://ouleft.sp-mesolite.tilted.net/Onlinebannedthought.net
https://bannedthought.net/Books scanned by Ismail from eregime.org that were uploaded to archive.org
https://archive.org/details/@ismail_badiouThe Great Soviet Encyclopedia: Articles from the GSE tend to be towards the bottom.
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/EcuRed: Cuba's online encyclopedia
https://www.ecured.cu/Books on libcom.org
https://libcom.org/bookDictionary of Revolutionary Marxism
https://massline.org/Dictionary/index.htm/EDU/ ebook share thread
https://leftypol.org/edu/res/22659.htmlPre-Marxist Economics (Marx studied these thinkers before writing Capital and Theories of Surplus Value)
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/index.htmPrinciple writings of Karl Marx on political economy, 1844-1883
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/economy/index.htmSpeeches and Articles of Marx and Engels on Free Trade and Protectionism, 1847-1888
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/free-trade/index.htm(The Critique Of) Political Economy After Marx's Death
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/postmarx.htmThere need to be more totalitarian approaches to politecon, you cannot stay just economists, you need some revolutionary vigeur.
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
>>2507179A wave of AI layoffs will give the tertiary sector their first taste of class consciousness.
>>2507186Once you’re laid off you’re lumpen and now have reactionary interests, doubly so since you were labor aristocracy first.
>>2507189TRVKE
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.
>>2507186I 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
>>2507179Bourgeois 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.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch15.htm >>2507147well, these threads are presumably for the study or discussion of political economy, so it shouldnt be surprising when people discuss political economy…
>>2507168jevons is still operating under say's law of the market:
<supply creates its own demand>>2507165in 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 >>2507152as 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.htmwe 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.htmfurther, 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.htmi 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.htmlyet 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.htmto 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.htmso 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.htmthis 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.htmhe 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.htmthis 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.htmi have spoken of marx's anti-physicalism here:
>>2489516>>2489518we 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.htmif 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.htmso 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.htma slave is an object, not a subject. 🤷🏻♂️😅🫠
>social constructmarx'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.htmif 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?
>>2507563thank you for this book
>>2507515Soviets published a lot of them while they still existed. Ismail has upload quite a few of them online:
https://archive.org/details/@ismail_badiou >>2507856you can empirically verify production costs
you cant empirically verify "value"
>>2508075thats why youre a successful businessman and not a flailing humanities student or economics professor.
>>2508099maybe if you turn off the tap of welfare they will be coming back a bit more enthusiastically.
>>2508075>>2508091also, 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.htmso 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.htmso 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-ownersI'm not sure that's accurate.
>>2508218you 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 >>2508230what about horses
>>2508574Smith 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.
>>2508574animals 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 existit 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 personhttps://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 labouryou mean "wage labour"? i have already explained what undergirds your mysticism of the wage-slave.
>>2507165peep 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 >>2509035without 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>>2508574From 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. >>2509325Arbeit 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.
>>2509332wealth, 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 >>2509325rent, 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>>2509614i'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 evilnothing bad ever happened before 1948 i guess.
>haz al-dinyes, 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 benefitsetc.
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.htmbut 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.
>>2509651Good points but mostly wrong
>>2509614if 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.
>>2509325it's not about 'decadence' of financialisation. It's the speculative and parasitic nature of it.
>>2509664how? 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"
>>2509726the 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 evilmade 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🤣🤣
>>2509715that wasnt me, but i responded sympathetically to that anon anyway.
>>2509737communism 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.
>>2509768ive 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?
>>2510225i 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.
>>2510247ah so you are a liberal. Why are you in this board? No offense
>>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".
>>2510256why 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>>2489562this 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.htmi 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.htmmarx 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.htmmarx 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.htmand 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.htmas 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.htmmarx'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 meanshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p6.htmof 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.htmof 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.htmmarx 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.htmso 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.htmhere, 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.htmso 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.htmto trotsky, it was simply the "opposition" or "new course" against the "old guard":
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/newcourse/index.htmwhat 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,_1931here 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 policieshttps://wikirouge.net/texts/en/Letter_to_all_Sections_of_the_International_Left,_February_17,_1931here 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.htmso 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 possiblehttps://web.archive.org/web/20090705062937/http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.htmlhere, 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).
>>2510768only 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 stateyou lie
>>2510770in communism, the government owns everything;
therefore all property belongs to the state.
>>2510768marx 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.htmmarx 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.htmᴉuᴉlossnW 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 Statehttps://bibliotecafascista.blogspot.com/2012/03/speech-of-ascension-may-26-1927.htmlwho said it best? hitler or marx?
>Arbeit macht frei<labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want >>2510795Property Is Theft
>>2510839>property is theftthoughts 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.htmwe 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-possessionmarx 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.htmthis 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.htmthis 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.htmso 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.htmin practical terms, this means an oppression of the talented by the talentless.
>>2510247isn'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
>>2510795how 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 profitsbecause 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
>>2510247I'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.
>>2511163https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/04/michael-hudson-the-truth-about-the-destruction-of-the-palestinians.htmlMICHAEL 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
>>2511390Michael 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
>>2511407that's not precisely what your text says. you lie.
>>2511340>All those words and paragraphs to not explainyeah 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.
>>2511485Do 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
>>2511519death to michael hudson!
>>2511532its 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
>>2511525economists 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
>>2511554this 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 agoWhy do you fight so hard to excuse Hudson's life-long service to trotskyism and imperialism?
>>2511560https://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
>>2511574China 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 capitalistwhere?
>>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.
>>2511165im 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.
>>2511340you dont understand because you dont even believe in the very idea of justice. you've made yourself uncivilised.
>>2511508liberalism ≠ capitalism
as i write here:
>>2510749trotskyists 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>>2511570remember kids
don't feed the TORposters
>>2510908well, 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.htmhere, 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 Motherhttps://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treatise_of_Taxes_and_Contributions_(1899)/Xlocke 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.htmhere, 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.htmthat 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.htmwe 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.htmhere 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:
>>2404717where 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:
>>2508103so 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.htmwilliam 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:
>>2495832jevons 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 principleyes 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
>>2511599original question
<how do you get totalitarianism out of that workyour 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 ≠ capitalismtotalitarianism ≠ communism
>trotskyists think marxism = liberalismi 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"
>>2510904Did 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 Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmNow 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 Programmehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm https://www.youtube.com/live/J86C4IJTaFwdugin 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.htmso 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.htmso, 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.htmso 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 overcomeyou 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 couponsinterpret 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.htmwhy 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/J86C4IJTaFwthis channels thumbnails are a goldmine
>>2512609your point?
>>2512395>Communists have no problem with PERSONAL property. PRIVATE property is different. what is the difference? you never defined it.
>im not quoting marxread:
>>2512897then get back to me.
>you confuse communism with the lower stages of socialismmarx is against socialism. he calls his "co-operative society" a lower form of communism.
>the state has withered away under communismonly the "political" state, not the administrative state.
>totalitarianism ≠ communismthats true, but communism = totalitarianism
>i don't think i've ever seen a trotskyist say thisi speak about it here:
>>2510749>>2488650>>2489562 >>2512910>>2512907>>2512906oh 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
>>2512921what causes inflation?
>>2512935In what kind of an economy? One that has growing wages or not?
>>2512943in the current american economy, what determines inflation?
>>2512951Increase 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?
>>2512963Inflation 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
>>2512969You don't appear to be interested in truth
>>2512974>what causes inflation?<population and employment>is that all?<yes but noi am looking for truth so am clarifying your statements
>>2512975It 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.
>>2512981and inflation has nothing at all to do with money supply?
>>2512987Are you going to cry about it? Either say your piece, or fuck off.
>>2512991You don't agree - you say it cleanly and explain why. Being a smug faggot only gets you hate and ridicule.
>>2512992why 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.
>>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. Theoreticalhttp://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 Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm>>2513597Again 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 Ouvrierhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n5>>2513618You 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 Literaturehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm >>2513590>>2513594You 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 civilizationAgain,
<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 modelThat 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?
>>2513618uh what about all the times he went on and on about how based and cool capitalism is
>>2514317sounds stupid, it's easy to make an time table.
>>2514317>1982damn if only there were powerful computational devices that have become more widespread since then.
>>2513760>quoting engels is spreading liesyou are extremely paranoid. get a life.
>>2513811give 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.
>>2513789this 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.htmyoull 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 unconsciousyet 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 propertypublic 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 freewhy do you keep repeating yourself?
>the entire population will have the right to employmentyou 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 workersyoure 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 marketby 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 freeyes, 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.
>>2514317more 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.htmthe 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.
>>2513618notice 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.
>>2514785anon 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
>>2514275if 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>sagepostingalways 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.
>>2515114lmao 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 Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmNow, 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 Accumulationhttps://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 Materialismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htmFurthermore, 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 Necessityhttps://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 Communismhttps://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 Germanyhttps://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 Ouvrierhttps://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 Programmehttps://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 Programmehttps://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 Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmYou 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.
>>2514568Literally 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?
>>2515188marx 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 conclusionweird, huh? 🤒👌
>>2515612>Marx is describing a person living under capitalism having a delusional view of thingsdelusional 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.htmso 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 classi 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 workersyou are talking to me using your own property.
>The property of indigenous peoples did not follow your fantasy of private property having an eternal essencei dont care about your noble savages.
>Collective propertydoesnt 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.
>unemploymentunemployment 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 anotherthe 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 anythingbecause 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 workerstheres 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 identityit is one. your politics are identity politics.
>If a worker wishes to act like a class traitor, they will be punished as a class traitorwhich 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 capitalismwhy? because the government does stuff. thats your worldview. more government means more gooder.
>marx was anti-socialist and pro-capitalist,
wtf
>>2515803yes, read here, as directed:
>>2510749 >>2515803yeah 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
>>2515812read this:
>>2510749and tell me what is incorrect
Remember to ignore him
>>2515849if 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:
>>2510749which 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>>2515851as 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
>>2515853this is the opposite of "ignoring" me btw.
log off already, you parasocial loser
you have nothing to contribute
>>2515855show me where marx ever calls himself a socialist
Yup it was the wind
>>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.
>>2516197This 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.
>>2516203X 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.
>>2516250is it fair that X gets paid only 1/8th of Y's pay?
if not, why?
>>2516253It'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.
>>2516269now, now. no need for all this blustering.
a simple "no" would have sufficed.
now that we have established unfairness.
what exactly makes things unfair?
>>2516271When 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 unfairwhat 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 Ouvrierhttps://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 Communistshttps://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, 1849https://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 Communismhttps://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 Economyhttps://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 Communistshttps://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, Appendixhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/append.htmThen 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 Communistshttps://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 Ouvrierhttps://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 Programmehttps://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 slavesDon'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 Communismhttps://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 Germanyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/ch02.htmThis 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.htmLenin 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-GUESSLenin 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
>>2516966We 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.
>>2516703youve never even read the first chapter of capital
why are you in this thread?
>>2517016what?
>>2516960>social character of bourgeois propertyaristotle 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 nothingaccording 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 whinedo 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 capitalistsyes, 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 capitalistwe know.
>>2516275just 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:
>>2511621justice 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?
>>2517151You 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>>2516712Yeah Smith Anon is full of shit (as usual).
>>2517519but 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.
>>2517472name 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?)
>>2517430what 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.
>>2517594what is the bigger picture im missing?
is profit theft? yes or no? if yes, why?
>>2517600Please refer to Point 1a of this short introductory text before continuing
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htmTankyoo!
>>2517602theft 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?
>>2517614Again refer to point 1a, tankyoo!
>>2517616oh, so youre another joker who has no actual input into this thread. please desist from replying to me. thanks.
>>2517617What 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 blahRefer to →
>>2517591 >>2517632right, so youre an unserious wanker.
please log off.
>>2517636>Agree with my retardation wanker! WaahNo
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.
>>2517658should 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
>>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, 1875In 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, 1878Your 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 Communehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.comIt 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 Communistshttps://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.
>>2517600are 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
>>2518114Wait he's now quoting that guy
>political economy general
>looks inside
>autists and retards fighting
name is accurate
>>2518254Yeah you're right that is what happened.
>>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 Communistshttps://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?
>>2513547Good answer. Couldn't have put it better myself.
>>2518217>>2518114>>2518136>>2518269👀 peep the theory:
https://panarchy.org/rothbard/confiscation.html>>2518274i speak of this here:
>>2511621children 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".
>>2518107i 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 extractionYES 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 socialismmarx 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 levelat 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 createstop 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 societyyou mean the state? stop repeating my words.
>It seems that apologists for the bourgeoisie like you will cease to exist in the revolutioni 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 agentthe 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 stonetossbruh
>>2513547Well 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.)
>>2518536youre 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 capitalMarx 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 valuesyou 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.htmso then, the "value" of commodities is what adam smith calls their "natural price", or equilibrium between supply and demand in the market.
>propertyi 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 marxare you guys best friends or something
>>2518642enemies 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 clumsyThe rest is commentary
>>2518702It'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.
>>2518742Good news for you then, modern China has granted your wish
>>2518613If 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 tendenciesyes, 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 ownershipdo you legally own things? yes
do the rich legally own things? yes
therefore, property is a universal category. bye. 💅🏻
>>2518756show 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.
>>2518745I 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.
>>2518775That'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
>>2518700taoism 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.htmlonce 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.htmso 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.htmso 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#1885so 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. 😅
>>2518779That's the thing. Realizing that "winning" and "solving" are not the same thing and the latter is not necessary for the former.
>>2518784Yes 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.
>>2518806Personal property = Proletarian Private Property
Private property = (Bourgeous) Private Property
Hope that helped, bye 👋
>>2518808marx 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.htmso 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 marxAnother 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 pricescontradiction.
>>2518862<I must now pass byMust now pass by what?
>>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 valuesthis 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
>>2518917Dude 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 termsterms 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 propertynope. 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.htmin all cases, individual property is private property, whether it belongs to a capitalist or worker.
>>2515586State 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 marxWhat'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?
>>2518871I'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 yourselfWorkers 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 Intelligentsiahttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/nov/00.htmHere 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 RUSSIAhttps://www.marxists.info/archive/lenin/works/1905/jan/06c.htmHere 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 1848-51https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch02.htmLet'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 Communismhttps://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 individualthis 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 bullshityeah 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.
>>2518448>i just call myself a liberal, so am a republican in the manner of the bourgeoisbut 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 valuesyou simply disagree with marx. why not just say it?
>capital vol. 3the 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 ownershipbad 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 Leninand 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 peopleswas lenin proletarian? did he survive from wage labour?
>The bourgeoisie stopped being revolutionary a long time ago when confronted by the proletariatnot at all. give some examples of revolutionary proletarians.
>>2519767>but this is completely out of line with rothbardrothbard 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 nationalizedright, so you agree with rothbard, congratulations.
>the numbers dont lie communism is objectively superior if freedom is your goalchina is a capitalist country. do markets and money exist in a communist society? no.
>if unregulated markets are so goodmarkets should be regulated. i never said otherwise.
>but you said freedom is slaverywhere?
>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 workright, 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 privatenope, there is no difference. read marx instead of making up bullshit in your head.
>>2519266>this isn't the distinguishing factor of "private" propertylets 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.htmokay, so you disagree with marx.
>>2519270the 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 centralizationyes 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.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/third.htmnext 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.htmhmm. 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.htmso 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 propertyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htmoh, 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.htmso 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):
>>2511621is 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.htmso 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 companieswhat 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 wrongi 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 launchedwhat? 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.
>>2519834>why are you historicising it?by looking to historical cases where patent law was ignored we can test your hypothesis that removal of patent law would immediately implode all monopolies. seeing that historically, lack of patent protection has still resulted in the creation of monopolies, we can thereby disprove your claim. this is empirical science 101 and not the retarded feels-based imagination of hayek.
>>2519818<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.htmThat was about the aggregate. If the rate of profit equalizes and different industries have different compositions of capital, what follows. This comes literally exactly after your quote:
<But it is evident that the balance among spheres of production of different composition must tend to equalize them with the spheres of average composition, be it exactly or only approximately the same as the social average. Between the spheres more or less approximating the average there is again a tendency toward equalization, seeking the ideal average, i.e., an average that does not really exist, i.e., a tendency to take this ideal as a standard. In this way the tendency necessarily prevails to make the prices of production merely converted forms of value, or to turn profits into mere portions of surplus-value. However, these are not distributed in proportion to the surplus-value produced in each special sphere of production, but rather in proportion to the mass of capital employed in each sphere, so that equal masses of capital, whatever their composition, receive equal aliquot shares of the total surplus-value produced by the total social capital.For that to happen, price ratios have to differ from value ratios systematically, as stated here:
>>2518751>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. >>2519837are monopolies indefinititely sustainable, or do they lose profit as they employ more and more capital? most say that companies require subsidies at this threshold, but according to you, there is no declining profit, and without subsidies, competition simply resolves itself into one company owning everything. the idea of small companies and big companies existing in the same market is a childish fantasy.
>>2519842>price ratios have to differ from value ratiosand their aggregate price is their natural price, no? the sum of all prices = the cost of production = value?
>>2519819>rothbard also says that the state should nationalise corporations.in preparation for "redistribution", which as i said simply ensures reconsolidation and reemergence of monopoly.
>he is seemingly out of line with himself in that article, by being consistent with liberal values. thats the point.the point is that he is incoherent or his suggestion is in bad faith knowing that it will recreate the very problem its meant to solve?
>this is also marx's opinion of "primitive accumulation".its not
>what causes monopoly today? intellectual propertyand where does intellectual property come from? historic regulatory capture. monopoly and the state mutually reinforcing eachother
>right, so you agree with rothbard, congratulations.rothbard does not agree that they should be permanently kept under democratic control, he says they should be "nationalized" as a step to reprivatization just like any other nazi
>china is a capitalist country.wrong
>do markets and money exist in a communist society? no.obviously they do since china is a communist society.
>workers do it every dayand do you agree with it?
>theyre called orphanages>in our culturei didn't ask what happens i asked what you think
>can do, or may do? description versus prescription.what do
you think
>communism is not demo-cratic communism is the only true democracy
>>2519824>yes and big businesses fail, leading smaller companies to appropriate the capital which is unsustainable in its cumulative employment.no big businesses fail and get bailed out by the banks
>if there were no state subsidies, many companies would shrink. you must agree with this.of course, but what is the mechanism for getting rid of state subsidies? making the state represent the citizenry instead of the corporations. and how do you do that? with a dictatorship of the proletariat. all other configurations have tried and been proven not to work
>>2519833he is everything and nothing all at once with opinions that change with the wind so he can pretend he is always correct
>>2519846>are monopolies indefinititely sustainable, or do they lose profit as they employ more and more capital? of course not which is why the falling rate of profit under monopoly leads to stagnation and overproduction necessitating extraterritorial expansion undermining the foundational values of liberalism, in a word imperialism. and we can see how this does not work out as the globalization of liberal values runs into the material constraints on a finite planet as periphery and semicolonial countries rebel for the right to self determination. capitalism itself is unsustainable for exactly this reason, and if we follow your advice society is sure to overcome capitalism by returning to barbarism. capitalism is great on paper but you eventually run out of other people's money
>>2510749Key:
>smith anon quote<not smith anon quoteme
___>marxism isnt even really left-wing.a bizarre array of people claim this. You have Bordigists who claim that "left-wing" always and can only refer to the "left-wing" of Capital. You have socially conservative third worldists who hate the "left-wing degeneracy of the LGBT" or whatever who want to distance the working class movement from that by claiming Marxism is "not left wing." And how we have you, a self described liberal, making this same claim, likely for the inverse reason of the above categories. But "left wing" is usually just a colloquial expression grouping whatever forces regard themselves as contrary to the reactionaries and conservatives of a given era.
>i have addressed the false ideas that marx was a liberal seeking to complete the bourgeois revolution here:was anyone on leftypol besides you actually making that claim?
>this appears to be a myth amongst trotskyists who try to reclaim marx from stalin ok?
>by inserting him back into the western zeitgeist (a la lenin's "3 components"):But Lenin's "3 components" does indeed represent the sources of Marx's ideas.
>i have even addressed this nomenclature of marxism's zeitgeist before, refuting marx's supposed "french" influenceHow is it "supposed" French influence? The logic is this: Early socialism was utopian socialism. Like Saint-Simon and Fourier.
It criticised capitalist society (like Marx), it condemned and damned it (like Marx), it dreamed of its destruction (like Marx), it had visions of a better order (like Marx).
But unlike Marx utopian socialism could not indicate the real solution. It could not explain the real nature of wage-slavery under capitalism, it could not reveal the laws of capitalist development, or show what social force is capable of becoming the creator of a new society. So Marx built a scientific socialism that drew historical inspiration from, but did not repeat the mistakes of, the earlier Utopian socialism. You have not "refuted" this at all, you merely assert over and over that there is no French influence on Marx. This claim of French influence on Marx is not btw the same as claiming Marx was a liberal (something I don't see anyone on leftypol seriously claiming) who wanted to complete the bourgeois revolution. However it's worth remembering who Engels and Marx were allied with in 1848.
>marx in the communist manifesto obviously posits communism not just as antagonistic to capitalism, but even moreso, to existing socialist movements (1848):To be antagonistic to utopian socialism is not to be totally uninspired by utopian socialism. The basis for Lenin's claim in
3 components that Marxism is inspired by utopian socialism (Fourier, Saint-Simon) is the basis that Marx sought to take the opposition to Capitalism, but subtract the utopianism. Marx was opposed to existing socialist movements on the basis of them being Utopian, but also for other reasons (See Principles of Communism from 1847)
>marx shows particular friendship to anglo movements:>and distinguishes between british "communists" and french "socialists" here, presenting the socialists in a lesser light than the communists (1863):Yes he views the Chartists as more advanced in their theory and practice than the Utopian socialists. Yet he still read Fourier and Saint-Simon and made extensive commentaries on them in both Capital and Theories of Surplus Value.
>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):Marx points out that:
<“No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society."(from the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859))
And Engels says:
<the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity. (Principles of Communism, 1847)
So it is less that Marx/Engels "prefer" Capitalist "progress" to Socialist "reform" and more that they see proletarian revolution as a necessary prerequisite to reforming society gradually, and that proletarian revolution will be carried out when the social order is destroyed. That social order will not be destroyed until the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed. It is entirely possible that we are still not there yet and may have jumped the gun in this regard.
>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 meansKey words "might be". There is no "destiny" being proposed by them in the speculative phrase "might be"
>of socialist ideas, marx openly adopts robert owens' labour certificates in his own vision (1867/75):>of french socialist ideas, only engels makes reference to saint-simon's "administration of things" (1880):Ok, and? Marxism includes Engels. It's also not a static dogma either.
>marx did not appear to conceive of socialism as its own system, but only as a sublation of capitalism (1867/75):Yes. It emerges from capitalist society. But that doesn't mean it's not a "system." It's a system that evolves out of a previous system, keeping what is relevant and useful from the previous system and discarding what becomes deleterious and backwards.
>so marx did not consider socialism progressive, but only capitalism, since its capitalism, not socialism, which socialises production based on private centralisationYes
>marx was not inspired by "french socialism" but english capitalism. See above: "To be antagonistic to utopian socialism is not to be totally uninspired by utopian socialism. […]"
>the point of this is to say that french socialism is born from the french left (republicanism), while marxism is not.Marxism takes multiple sources of inspiration, including French Utopian Socialism, but creates a syncretic blend that overcomes the limitations of its sources and components. That is Lenin's entire point in
3 Components.
>marxism has no continuity with the french revolution, while other movements do. so lenin is wrong about thatI don't think you've demonstrated this at all, but in any case Marx sees proletarian revolution as having historical continuity with bourgeois revolution, in the sense that all class struggles in history have historical continuity with each other, and in the sense that subsequent modes of production evolve out of one another:
<In 1648 the bourgeoisie was allied with the modern aristocracy against the monarchy, the feudal aristocracy and the established church.
<In 1789 the bourgeoisie was allied with the people against the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church.
<The model for the revolution of 1789 (at least in Europe) was only the revolution of 1648; that for the revolution of 1648 only the revolt of the Netherlands against Spain. [128] Both revolutions were a century ahead of their model not only in time but also in substance.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/12/15.htmWhen Marx talks about 1789, he specifically talks about the historical purpose it served:
<n 1789, the French monarchy had become so unreal, that is to say, so robbed of all necessity, so irrational, that it had to be destroyed by the Great Revolution, of which Hegel always speaks with the greatest enthusiasm. In this case, therefore, the monarchy was the unreal and the revolution the real. And so, in the course of development, all that was previously real becomes unreal, loses it necessity, its right of existence, its rationality.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Ludwig_Feuerbach.pdf
>and consequently, marxism loses its leftist historicity.I disagree that you have demonstrated the previous claim that this additional claim hinges upon, but once again there is an important difference between what Bordigist means by "left" (left wing of Capital) and what people colloquially mean by "left" (whatever opposes the reactionaries and conservatives of the current era). Marxism opposes reactionaries, and I think it is therefore fair to call it "left" in the colloquial sense of the word, but not the Bordigist sense of the word.
>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.Again, he rejects utopian socialism because of, on one hand, its incompleteness and idealism, and on the other hand its reactionary and bourgeois nature, but he does agree with the general premise of opposing capitalism. Rajani Palme Dutt (A Marxist) writes:
<It was in 1799 that Fourier first became convinced of the necessity of a new form of social organisation when he found himself entrusted with the task at Marseilles to superintend the destruction of a quantity of rice held for higher prices during a scarcity of food till it had become unfit for use. https://www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/1935/fascism-social-revolution-3.pdfThis phrase
the necessity of a new form of social organisation is the essence of what Marxism borrowed from Utopian Socialism even if it discarded the bourgeois idealism.
>here are lenin's comments on "left-wing" communism (1920):You know Lenin uses scare quotes in the title of that book for a reason, right? Not because he rejects the idea that Marxism is opposed the reactionary and conservative movements (the colloquial use of the term "left") but because he is opposed to the mistakes of people calling themselves "Left" communists.
>here, lenin directly opposes the left "deviation" of the communist movement, which is an odd thing for a "leftist" to be advocating for.It is entirely possible to remain opposed to the reactionary and conservative forces while not being such an ideological purist that it spoils your ability to be strategically effective and scientific in your approach. that is the point. Marxists have spoken of both "left" and "right" deviations in this specific context.
>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.”Trotsky and Molotov's disagreement in your subsequent quote seem to be over what is strategically feasible more than what is "True Leftism."
>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…>to trotsky, it was simply the "opposition" or "new course" against the "old guard":Yes because in the context of fighting between Marxists (which is possible since Marxism is not a dogma but an evolving thing) the point is to fight over what is strategically useful.
>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.>here then, the "left" has the same meaning as it does to lenin, as a deviation or criticism of soviet policy. There are both "left" and "right" deviations from what is determined to be strategically useful.
> 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
>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."Yes Marx was not a Marxist and Jesus was not a Christian. We get it. You quote this one often. But has it occurred to you that what Marx was referring to as "Marxist" was different from what "Marxism" became later on? Just like Lenin and most "Marxists" called themselves "social democratic" before 1914?
>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 possibleWhat is emerging today in the counter-reactionary forces, since "left" is too annoying of a term for many "lefty"pol.org, I think, are new syncretisms. Evolution, not dogma. Not every "Marxist" has to agree with 100% of what Marx said, and not every "Marxist-Leninist" has to agree with 100% of what Marx, Lenin, and Stalin said.
>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).Noted but no comment.
> this student new left is identical with trotsky's "new course" opposing the "old guard", with stalin equally being the villain.I disagree that the New Left opposed "Stalinism" for precisely and only the same reasons that Trotsky opposed Stalin. That seems like a reductive "Just So" narrative.
>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 liberalsI think you are doing mental gymnastics to breath new life into liberalism, which is the geriatric ideology of capitalist imperialists who are actively committing genocide in Gaza as we speak.
>while "orthodox" marxists are only "left" to leninism. radical bourgeois subjects are the left.Well you agree with Bordiga but I won't say that makes you a Bordigist
>there is no "left" of the left, but only the right. These terms were always relative to a context and don't have static metaphysical definitions.
>todd mcgowan has called marx a right-winger before (since marx wants to resolve contradiction rather than maintain its self-relation).Well he is a neo-Hegelian disciple of Zizek who advocated for the privatization of Yugoslavia after its balkanization at the hands of NATO.
>>2519818>bad start.Any property that is not used cannot be maintained as a person's owner without the constant use of violence and the state. The question of ownership will be a historical social construct to deny access to others if this is outside the labor force performed by the worker in the means of production. Even so, what is socially created cannot exist as someone's owner without the constant violence and threats of the state to maintain exclusive ownership. Therefore, the desire to own property will exist only as the relations of social classes in a society are formed in their relationships with the means of production and how these are controlled for distribution. In capitalism, ownership exists only to serve in its sale and purchase to intensify the exploitation of surplus value through accumulation and the ever-concentration of more capital. This is why the organization of the means of production and distribution of what is produced must be done collectively, and the maintenance of a possession cannot exist beyond its maintenance and use.
>they work for wages (their property), not your fanfiction.Workers work for wages because they lack access to the means of subsistence and access to their needs without having to use their wages. The means of production are controlled by the capitalist class, which produces goods to sell on the market to profit from the exploitation of surplus value by these workers, who only desire the use value of these goods, which they do not control. With these means of production collectively organized for use, this changes, where needs are no longer commodities being inflated to simply see how much more can be sold on the market through speculation.
Workers who gain class consciousness will begin organizing for their collective interest because they realize that fighting for all workers together in solidarity benefits them, while the abandonment and abuse of other abandoned workers harms them, allowing the capitalist to more intensely exploit the worker who does not think they will be affected. Hence the fight for the right to employment, reduced working hours, equalization of wages for union workers to prevent traitors, democratization for radical union organizing, defense of the rights of all labor rights for all workers so that they do not fight in isolation with all costs being transferred to capitalists without exception, with various punishments being transferred to the capitalists. This will nullify prejudices if done together with the obligation that the wages not paid to immigrant workers below those of native workers be transferred in compensation to the exploited worker, with further punishments for the capitalists. The right to occupations so that it can be used as a weapon against capitalists and those who go bankrupt or abandon a property if they try some dirty trick, forced unionization of all workers, demand a statistics commission formed exclusively of workers to organize the finances at the national bank and money so that inflation can never be used against workers and so that economists and administrators of the bourgeoisie cannot hide behind to punish workers with technocratic rhetoric that claims to be above politics.
>🤣🤣 you think workers thinking about liberating humanity, or about themselves? the interest of workers is inherently petty-bourgeois. deal with it.Workers, by fighting for the democratization of the economy, are eventually preparing for the abolition of private property and social classes with the collective organization of the means of production and distribution. Therefore, I say that the emancipation of humanity is achieved with the supremacy of the proletarian class.
>no, i imagine a society separated from the state. you confuse society with the state, like ᴉuᴉlossnW.Wrong, there's no class conciliation in what I'm talking about. The proletariat organized as a class overthrows the capitalist state, consolidates the proletarian state, and expropriates the exploiting classes, turning them into workers. With the abolition of private property, and this property organized in common with the entire society in association rather than competition to meet the needs of workers, the root that creates the state no longer exists because there are no other social classes to suppress. The state is merely an instrument for one class to oppress another, and I don't care about the outrage of capitalists and their apologists who pretend this doesn't exist. You just create a fantasy in your head that thinks private property can exist without the state, but there's no point in imagining it when the documents recognizing private property are burned and erased of what belongs to whom.
>and here's a quote by lenin referring to marx and engels belonging to the BOURGEOIS intelligentsia:You are ignoring the formative period of Marx and Engels with a universalist republicanism that still needed to combine the theory of socialism with the radical class struggle of the proletariat. It had not yet formed a theory of independence from the bourgeoisie to then form the base of intellectuals to serve the proletariat with scientific socialism. This arose as the bourgeoisie's ideals of equality and rights began to clash with capitalism and bourgeois private property, leading bourgeois intellectuals to abandon their values, becoming conservative, reactionary, reformist, or elevating these values, leading them into conflict, questioning bourgeois society. Or going far beyond these concepts of their formation, trying to understand the world around them that was forming with a better understanding of capitalism and going beyond what had been theorized by utopian and revolutionary socialists who had not yet organized with the proletariat so they could have a theoretical basis and be a revolutionary force independent of the bourgeois class in the struggle against it.
And do you know what Lenin was talking about in the text and in what context? Let's take a more complete quote:
<In the previous chapter we pointed out how universally absorbed the educated youth of Russia was in the theories of Marxism in the middle of the nineties. In the same period the strikes that followed the famous St. Petersburg industrial war of 1896 assumed a similar general character. Their spread over the whole of Russia clearly showed the depth of the newly awakening popular movement, and if we are to speak of the “spontaneous element” then, of course, it is this strike movement which, first and foremost, must be regarded as spontaneous. But there is spontaneity and spontaneity. Strikes occurred in Russia in the seventies and sixties (and even in the first half of the nineteenth century), and they were accompanied by the “spontaneous” destruction of machinery, etc. Compared with these “revolts”, the strikes of the nineties might even be described as “conscious”, to such an extent do they mark the progress which the working-class movement made in that period. This shows that the “spontaneous element”, in essence, represents nothing more nor less than. consciousness in an embryonic form. Even the primitive revolts expressed the awakening of consciousness to a certain extent. The workers were losing their age-long faith in the permanence of the system which oppressed them and began… I shall not say to understand, but to sense the necessity for collective resistance, definitely abandoning their slavish submission to the authorities. But this was, nevertheless, more in the nature of outbursts of desperation and vengeance than of struggle. The strikes of the nineties revealed far greater flashes of consciousness; definite demands were advanced, the strike was carefully timed, known cases and instances in other places were discussed, etc. The revolts were simply the resistance of the oppressed, whereas the systematic strikes represented the class struggle in embryo, but only in embryo. Taken by themselves, these strikes were simply trade union struggles, not yet Social Democratic struggles. They marked the awakening antagonisms between workers and employers; but the workers, were not, and could not be, conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism of their interests to the whole of the modern political and social system, i.e., theirs was not yet Social-Democratic consciousness. In this sense, the strikes of the nineties, despite the enormous progress they represented as compared with the “revolts”, remained a purely spontaneous movement.
<We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. 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.[2] 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. In the period under discussion, the middle nineties, this doctrine not only represented the completely formulated programme of the Emancipation of Labour group, but had already won over to its side the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia.
<Hence, we had both the spontaneous awakening of the working masses, their awakening to conscious life and conscious struggle, and a revolutionary youth, armed with Social-Democratic theory and straining towards the workers. In this connection it is particularly important to state the oft-forgotten (and comparatively little-known) fact that, although the early Social-Democrats of that period zealously carried on economic agitation (being guided in this activity by the truly useful indications contained in the pamphlet On Agitation,[27] then still in manuscript), they did not regard this as their sole task.
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1901, What Is To Be Done?, BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT, II The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of the Social-Democratshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm
>was lenin proletarian? did he survive from wage labour?Lenin was serving as a revolutionary professional, using his study of laws to serve the proletariat against those who deny its domination, so that they can organize independently of the bourgeoisie and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. He served as the revolutionary intelligentsia for this class, without talking about class conciliation or fantasizing about state neutrality, or fantasizing that the state is not the instrument of one class to oppress another, born of the irreconcilability of social classes. He played his role, as everyone must, using what they have in common with the proletariat to abolish private property and the anarchy of production, with the new ruling class of the proletariat that will abolish the other social classes, thereby abolishing itself.
>not at all. give some examples of revolutionary proletarians.George Engel was a factory worker who joined the International Workingmen's Association and died fighting for the interests of the proletariat. Nikolai Ostrovsky is another example who was with the Bolsheviks and fought for the revolution.
>>2520357>what is the mechanism for getting rid of state subsidies? making the state represent the citizenry instead of the corporationsyes, precisely. a demo-cracy.
<dictatorship of the proletariata democratic state is a universal state, not a class dictatorship.
>>2520734>>2520734name a single inconsistency in my writing.
>>2520371>monopolies are unsustainableokay, so they dont break markets; markets break them.
>the globalization of liberal values runs into the material constraints on a finite planetliberalism for me, not for thee? lol
>>2520351>in preparation for "redistribution", which as i said simply ensures reconsolidation and reemergence of monopoly.your issue is that you presuppose disaster where people act freely, so build in solutions that take away agency. and again, why havent you commented upon marx's theory of primitive accumulation, which expressly places the origin of capital monopoly from the state, not the market?
>the point is that he is incoherentwhere? as he ends the article, his concern is with vurtue generally, rather than as stipulated ideologically. he is making a compromise with reality, you are not.
>and where does intellectual property come from?from the state enforcing monopoly
>china is not capitalist<money and markets exist in a communist society🤣 oh okay, so youre just retarded. i get it now. but then again, "communism = big gubbermint" appears to be an authentic belief of the marxists i speak to.
>do you agree with it?why would i? a society of slaves is a tyranny.
>i didn't ask what happens i asked what you thinkwhat youre asking me is "should abortion be legal and should orphanages exist?" i dont see why not.
>communism is the only true democracycommunism is a bureaucracy, not a democracy
>>2520351>primitive accumulation has nothing to do with the stateYOU'VE NEVER READ MARX. so lets read him now:
>The capitalist system presupposes the complete separation of the labourers from all property in the means by which they can realize their labour…https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm<Communal property — always distinct from the State property just dealt with — was an old Teutonic institution which lived on under cover of feudalism. We have seen how the forcible usurpation of this, generally accompanied by the turning of arable into pasture land, begins at the end of the 15th and extends into the 16th century […] The parliamentary form of the robbery is that of Acts for enclosures of Commons, in other words, decrees by which the landlords grant themselves the people’s land as private property […] parliamentary coup d’état is necessary for its transformation into private property […] the systematic robbery of the Communal lands helped especially, next to the theft of the State domains, to swell those large farms, that were called in the 18th century capital farms or merchant farms, and to “set free” the agricultural population as proletarians for manufacturing industry […] the most shameless violation of the “sacred rights of property” and the grossest acts of violence to persons […] To say nothing of more recent times, have the agricultural population received a farthing of compensation for the 3,511,770 acres of common land which between 1801 and 1831 were stolen from them and by parliamentary devices presented to the landlords by the landlords? The last process of wholesale expropriation of the agricultural population from the soil is, finally, the so-called clearing of estates, i.e., the sweeping men off them […] The Highland Celts were organised in clans, each of which was the owner of the land on which it was settled […] From 1814 to 1820 these 15,000 inhabitants, about 3,000 families, were systematically hunted and rooted out. All their villages were destroyed and burnt, all their fields turned into pasturage. British soldiers enforced this eviction, and came to blows with the inhabitants […] The spoliation of the church’s property, the fraudulent alienation of the State domains, the robbery of the common lands, the usurpation of feudal and clan property, and its transformation into modern private property under circumstances of reckless terrorism, were just so many idyllic methods of primitive accumulation. They conquered the field for capitalistic agriculture, made the soil part and parcel of capital, and created for the town industries the necessary supply of a “free” and outlawed proletariat.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm<The fathers of the present working class were chastised for their enforced transformation into vagabonds and paupers. Legislation treated them as “voluntary” criminals, and assumed that it depended on their own good will to go on working under the old conditions that no longer existed […] Thus were the agricultural people, first forcibly expropriated from the soil, driven from their homes, turned into vagabonds, and then whipped, branded, tortured by laws grotesquely terrible, into the discipline necessary for the wage system […] The bourgeoisie, at its rise, wants and uses the power of the state to “regulate” wages, i.e., to force them within the limits suitable for surplus-value making, to lengthen the working-day and to keep the labourer himself in the normal degree of dependence. This is an essential element of the so-called primitive accumulation […] It was forbidden, under pain of imprisonment, to pay higher wages than those fixed by the statute, but the taking of higher wages was more severely punished than the giving them […] All combinations, contracts, oaths, &c., by which masons and carpenters reciprocally bound themselves, were declared null and void […] We see that only against its will and under the pressure of the masses did the English Parliament give up the laws against Strikes and Trades’ Unions, after it had itself, for 500 years, held, with shameless egoism, the position of a permanent Trades’ Union of the capitalists against the labourers. […] Nothing is more characteristic than the pretext for this bourgeois coup d’état.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch28.htm<we have considered the forcible creation of a class of outlawed proletarians, the bloody discipline that turned them into wage labourers, the disgraceful action of the State which employed the police to accelerate the accumulation of capital by increasing the degree of exploitation of labour…https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch29.htm>The money capital formed by means of usury and commerce was prevented from turning into industrial capital, in the country by the feudal constitution, in the towns by the guild organisation. These fetters vanished with the dissolution of feudal society, with the expropriation and partial eviction of the country population […] The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation […] The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power […] The only part of the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possessions of modern peoples is their national debt. Hence, as a necessary consequence, the modern doctrine that a nation becomes the richer the more deeply it is in debt. Public credit becomes the credo of capital […] With the national debt arose an international credit system, which often conceals one of the sources of primitive accumulation in this or that people […] Colonial system, public debts, heavy taxes, protection, commercial wars, &c., these children of the true manufacturing period, increase gigantically during the infancy of Modem Industry […] With the development of capitalist production during the manufacturing period, the public opinion of Europe had lost the last remnant of shame and conscience. The nations bragged cynically of every infamy that served them as a means to capitalistic accumulation […] Tantae molis erat, to establish the “eternal laws of Nature” of the capitalist mode of production, to complete the process of separation between labourers and conditions of labour, to transform, at one pole, the social means of production and subsistence into capital, at the opposite pole, the mass of the population into wage labourers, into “free labouring poor,” that artificial product of modern society. If money, according to Augier, “comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,” capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htmcapitalism is a coup d'etat of expropriating classes forcing the state to "enclose the commons" and "clear the estates" by the privatisation of communal and state property, whereby all inhabitants are forcefully evicted and turned into dependent slaves who survive on land their ancestors once owned freely. as marx says, capitalist property directly depends upon the theft of former property by the instrument of the state. this is coexistent with other phenomena such as the rise of national debt, slavery and colonialism. so then, primitive accumulation does not occur by competition, but by the violation of property rights, which must be reversed.
>But "left wing" is usually just a colloquial expression grouping whatever forces regard themselves as contrary to the reactionaries and conservatives of a given era.its colloquialisation is its corruption.
>was anyone on leftypol besides you actually making that claim?the claim comes primarily from spencer leonard, a trotskyist, part of the "platypus" institute, where another contributor, chris cutrone, makes the identical claim. it appears part of contemporary trotskyist orthodoxy that marx was actually trying to save bourgeois society from itself (i.e. communism is "real liberalism" or something to this effect). its an implicit and slimy tactic marxists use to criticise capitalism also, that capitalism is restricting property ownership, free expression, etc. yet they support those things themselves. marx in the manifesto says it plainly that he is on the side of capital, but simply wants to mirror its development in the state:
>[The bourgeoisie] has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm<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>The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.<In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmso its this schizophrenic nonsense which rightly appears as dishonesty. the truth of course is that workers simply want to acquire their own property for themselves, rather than have it be stolen by capitalists or the state, respectively.
>ok?why are you acting dismissively when i am diagnosing your very political pathology, realised as trotskyist symptom?
>How is it "supposed" French influence?read the post - nowhere does marx make an ode to fourier or saint-simon, and robert owen exerts much more influence over marx, while also being british, like the rest of his theoretical heroes.
>It criticised capitalist society (like Marx)you appear to have never read the communist manifesto, or even my own post to which youre replying. marx criticises the critics of capitalism since he opposes socialism in place of communism, which is nothing besides a sublation of capitalist relations. marx supports capitalism and is against socialism.
>So Marx built a scientific socialism that drew historical inspiration from, but did not repeat the mistakes of, the earlier Utopian socialism. youre literally making things up (if not, show what aspects of utopian socialism he was inspired by, exactly). and i dont think marx ever used the term "scientific socialism" to describe his thought either, same way he never used "dialectical materialism" or any other mythic phrase which acts as a thought-terminating cliche. read marx instead of reading about marx.
>To be antagonistic to utopian socialism is not to be totally uninspired by utopian socialismhe was inspired by robert owen, who he describes as a "communist", not a (utopian) "socialist", of whom he mocks in comparison (which you'd know if you read my post instead of filling your mind with sewage).
>Marx sought to take the opposition to Capitalismmarx did not "oppose" capitalism, he simply wanted to replace capitalists with state administrators.
>Yet he still read Fourier and Saint-Simon and made extensive commentaries on them in both Capital and Theories of Surplus Value.REALLY?? lets see:
>search: "fourier" = 6 results (spurious references)<search "saint-simon" = 0 resultsyoure literally making things up on the spot. why are you engaging in this mental illness?
>It is entirely possible that we are still not there yet and may have jumped the gun in this regard.what are you talking about? engels literally thought capitalism was ending in his lifetime:
<The working of the industrial system of this country, impossible without a constant and rapid extension of production, and therefore of markets, is coming to a dead stop. Free Trade has exhausted its resources; even Manchester doubts this its quondam economic gospel. Foreign industry, rapidly developing, stares English production in the face everywhere, not only in protected, but also in neutral markets, and even on this side of the Channel. While the productive power increases in a geometric, the extension of markets proceeds at best in an arithmetic ratio. The decennial cycle of stagnation, prosperity, over-production and crisis, ever recurrent from 1825 to 1867, seems indeed to have run its course; but only to land us in the slough of despond of a permanent and chronic depression. The sighed for period of prosperity will not come; as often as we seem to perceive its heralding symptoms, so often do they again vanish into air. Meanwhile, each succeeding winter brings up afresh the great question, “what to do with the unemployed"; but while the number of the unemployed keeps swelling from year to year, there is nobody to answer that question; and we can almost calculate the moment when the unemployed losing patience will take their own fate into their own hands.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p6.htm>There is no "destiny" being proposed by themyes there is:
<The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm>Ok, and? Marxism includes Engelsyou were talking about "marx's" inspirations before, not its "marxism" as a whole. no. lenin's 3 components are about "marx" himself, not anything else, and he is wrong.
>Marxism takes multiple sources of inspiration, including French Utopian SocialismWHERE??? you've already lied, so tell the truth instead.
>I disagreemarx and no marxist ever called themselves "left" until there was communist opposition to the USSR, and "left" in this case had no relevance to the french revolution, except by a support in terrorism, as lenin notes. he first describes the phenomenon in 1920. it spreads as trotskyism and anti-stalinism until it is adopted by students with "the new left" in the 60s. none of this has continuity with liberalism as such.
>Again, he rejects utopian socialism because of, on one hand, its incompleteness and idealismagain, totally fabricated, imaginary postulations
>its reactionary and bourgeois naturesuch as? stop making things up.
>You know Lenin uses scare quotes in the title of that book for a reason, right?lenin in the whole book, never ever refers to communists as left-wing. again, youve never read the book, but youre commenting on it.
>Marxists have spoken of both "left" and "right" deviations in this specific context.the only context is opposition to soviet policy.
>You quote this one often. But has it occurred to you that what Marx was referring to as "Marxist" was different from what "Marxism" became later on?so what? and as i have asked others - why call yourself a marxist if youve not properly read marx? its a religion.
>Not every "Marxist" has to agree with 100% of what Marx saidthis is what every marxist says but they NEVER offer a formidable criticism of marx.
>I disagree that the New Left opposed "Stalinism" for precisely and only the same reasons that Trotsky opposed Stalinwhats the difference? trotskyism has colonised student campuses all over the west making the same arguments.
>I think you are doing mental gymnastics to breath new life into liberalismim simply attempting to be academic and historical.
>These terms were always relative to a contextyes, the positions within the french general assembly. this adapts to defining "liberal" and "conservative", not "communist" vs "capitalist".
>>2520680>Any property that is not used cannot be maintained as a person's owner without the constant use of violence and the state.this still doesnt define ownership. you own the property you use. that simplifies things doesnt it? see how i have no problem, while you implode at basic questions?
>Workers, by fighting for the democratization of the economy…right.
<are eventually preparing for the abolition of private property wut? more religious eschatology.
>You just create a fantasy in your head that thinks private property can exist without the stateit can in its natural forms, but once we create a society, we engage in social conraction which binds us to the rights of each other in a state. thus as aristotle says, the first unit of a state is the household.
>*cowers from lenin's designation of marx and engels as bourgeois intellectuals*lol
>Lenin was serving as a revolutionary professional…so no, he wasnt proletarian. thats all you had to write.
>George Engel was a factory worker who joined the International Workingmen's Association and died fighting for the interests of the proletariat. Nikolai Ostrovsky is another example who was with the Bolsheviks and fought for the revolution.okay, so two workers in a history of millions have ever been paeticularly revolutionary? not looking great 🤣
>>2520636>has anyone claimed marx was a liberal?here's a list of some supposed marxist liberals:
- slavoj zizek
- spencer leonard
- chris cutrone
- douglas lain
- ben burgis
- christian parenti
- matt mcmanus
- benjamin studebaker
- tony chamas
but as i have written, the claim that marx wanted to actualise what is only potential in bourgeois right is incorrect. the mission of marx's communism is to transcend bourgeois right (i.e. property); to disalienate labour from its original condition of estrangement (as he writes in the 1844 manuscripts). thus as john rawls perceives, marx's communism is in some way "beyond" the realm of justice, since it has done away with establishing the rights of property, and so we can also say that it is beyond any condition of liberalism.
>>2520864is meant to respond to
>>2520636 >>2520981>also Zizek is not a Marxist. I don't care if he calls himself one. 🤣🤣 like any religion or cult, its admission is conditioned by the purity of its members. but this is the paradox isnt it - marxism is mostly people who have never read marx telling other people who have never read marx that theyre impure - a pure faith of the signifier.
>>2520985thx. i guess i forgot to link. 🤷🏻♂️😅
>>2520864>its colloquialisation is its corruption.When someone says "Wow, that's really cool" do you bemoan how the word "cool" is supposed to refer to temperature and that language has been corrupted by the children?
>the claim comes primarily from spencer leonard, a trotskyist, part of the "platypus" institute, where another contributor, chris cutrone, makes the identical claim. it appears part of contemporary trotskyist orthodoxy that marx was actually trying to save bourgeois society from itself (i.e. communism is "real liberalism" or something to this effect). its an implicit and slimy tactic marxists use to criticise capitalism also, that capitalism is restricting property ownership, free expression, etc. yet they support those things themselves. marx in the manifesto says it plainly that he is on the side of capital, but simply wants to mirror its development in the state:"on the side of capital" is wrong, he just acknowledges the historical role of the bourgeoisie in centralizing production and supports the proletariat, as you yourself quote:
<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.He is not on the side of Capital, but is on the side of the proletariat. Capital is something to be seized from the bourgeoisie.
>marx supports capitalism and is against socialism.You are being weird and confusing on purpose here. Marx criticized the idealist mistakes of the Utopian Socialits liike Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen, while acknowledging the oppression of the proletariat that it sought to remedy, and Marx criticized bourgeois apologetics for Capitalism within political economy while incorporating some of its scientific analysis and acknowledging the historical role of the bourgeoisie in overthrowing feudalism. Marx synthesizes what is useful for him and discards what is not from Utopian Socialism, Classical Political Economy, and Hegelian dialectics. Tos ay he "supports capitalism and is against socialism" is especially reductive because Marx and Engels were referring to "Scientific Socialism" by the end, and the "socialism" they were criticizing in 1847/1848 was, as Engels lays out in Principles of Communism, Reactionary Socialism, Bourgeois Socialism, and Democratic Socialism. These were the 3 forms of Utopian Socialism they identified, and what they posed as contrary to it, Communism, they later went on to call Scientific Socialism.
>so its this schizophrenic nonsense which rightly appears as dishonesty. the truth of course is that workers simply want to acquire their own property for themselves, rather than have it be stolen by capitalists or the state, respectively.If the state is a proletarian state it's not really stealing from the proletariat. What we have now is a bourgeois state. The state is an instrument of class dominance. If you get rid of it altogether you just create a power vacuum that gets filled very quickly with state-like structures that constitute a state in denial of itself as a state. Very quickly bourgeois class rule gets re-established in that context. For Marx and Engels, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a temporary fixture beween the proletariat seizing power and the state withering away. But you characterize it as a non-proletarian state stealing from the workers.
>i dont think marx ever used the term "scientific socialism"Engels did. The entire Marxist tradition derives itself not just from Marx, but also Engels. This includes the above mentioned distinction between Utopian and Scientific Socialism. By ignoring Engels, you ignore one half of Marxism. You pretend Marxism is just Marx by being hyper-literal (your linguistic prescriptivism in general is indicative of this) and ignoring historical and political context to get one over people.
>he was inspired by robert owen, who he describes as a "communist", not a (utopian) "socialist", of whom he mocks in comparison (which you'd know if you read my post instead of filling your mind with sewage).No need to be so angry and rude. Your post was read and responded to with more patience than it perhaps warranted, given the low quality of your response.
>marx did not "oppose" capitalism, he simply wanted to replace capitalists with state administrators.Marx acknowledges Capitalism as historically progressive relative to feudalism, but envisions Communism as an advancement beyond Capitalism. By ignoring Marx's entire framework of modes of production you pretend Communism is just "capitalism plus state administrators." What do you envision instead? It's not likely we'll return to 18th century petty bourgeois yeomanry and artisanship.
>Saint-Simon not mentioned in capital or theories of surplus value.Whoops. I was probably thinking of this:
<Then came the three great Utopians: Saint-Simon, to whom the middle-class movement, side by side with the proletarian, still had a certain significance; Fourier; and Owen, who in the country where capitalist production was most developed, and under the influence of the antagonisms begotten of this, worked out his proposals for the removal of class distinction systematically and in direct relation to French materialism.
<One thing is common to all three. Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of that proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once. Like them, they wish to bring in the kingdom of reason and eternal justice, but this kingdom, as they see it, is as far as Heaven from Earth, from that of the French philosophers.
<For, to our three social reformers, the bourgeois world, based upon the principles of these philosophers, is quite as irrational and unjust, and, therefore, finds its way to the dust-hole quite as readily as feudalism and all the earlier stages of society. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htmBut again you seem to think there is no Engels in Marxism
>engels literally thought capitalism was ending in his lifetime:He doesn't say that in your quote. He is commenting on regional conditions of that era.
>yes there is:Your first quote said "might be" and you said "destiny" now you use a separate quote and ignore your first quote. You keep shifting the context around and hoping nobody scrolls up.
>marx and no marxist ever called themselves "left" it's just a colloquaial term referring to counter-reactionary forces. Liberalism was counter-reactionary against feudalism but is reactionary in its defense of capitalism against scientific socialism.
>>2520989he wasn't marxist because he was a liberal who ran as a liberal in a liberal party and wanted to balkanize yugoslavia
>>2521015*wanted to privatize balkanized Yugoslavia
>>2521065care to prove me wrong?
many have tried and all have failed.
>>2521015you are literally some stranger on the internet - what makes you "more" marxist than zizek? because you havent publicly defiled yourself with certain sins?
>>2521014>"on the side of capital" is wrongi disagree.
>He is not on the side of Capital, but is on the side of the proletariat. Capital is something to be seized from the bourgeoisie.if you apply the same laws of capital accumulation but replace capitalists with state administrators, could this be defined as "state capitalism"?
>You are being weird and confusing on purpose here.marx calls socialism a "bourgeois" movement and criticises every single socialist tendency in the manifesto. why arent you reading my posts?
<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 criticized the idealist mistakes of the Utopian Socialits liike Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owenhow were they "idealists"? you are making things up again.
>Marx and Engels were referring to "Scientific Socialism" by the end.only engels. marx never uses the term; he only calls himself a communist.
>Communism, they later went on to call Scientific Socialism. cite your source.
>If the state is a proletarian state it's not really stealing from the proletariat.the leadership of the communist party are themselves not proletarian, so the proletariat have no representation. if communist parties were organised like the paris communes i would be less cynical.
>If you get rid of it altogether you just create a power vacuum that gets filled very quickly with state-like structures that constitute a state in denial of itself as a state. i dont think there are any anarchists in the thread.
>But you characterize it as a non-proletarian state stealing from the workers.if money doesnt exist in this society, then there can be no universal trade of goods, and so people are only given what they receive from the government. this inheretly limits social wealth by debasing production upon the request of necessities. the public sector can already fulfill this function and the private sector the rest. whats wrong with a balance?
>The entire Marxist tradition derives itself not just from Marx, but also Engels.we were talking about marx. you keep shifting things over to engels - if you want "marxism", guess what? marx already disavowed it. if paul lafargue (marx's son in law) wasnt good enough for him, why would you be?
>ignoring historical and political context to get one over people. you mean that i actually read stuff and dont mindlessly fill in gaps? as i say, marxists get very angey when i read marx back to them - like a conservative hearing the words of Christ.
>No need to be so angry and rude.you literally make things up - how am i supposed to react? and you certainly didnt read my post properly since you wouldnt be spouting such utter bullshit like "marx wrote EXTENSIVE commentaries of the french socialists in capital". HE DIDNT. you should be completely ashamed of yourself for lying so blatantly.
>Communism as an advancement beyond Capitalism.not the lower phase
>you pretend Communism is just "capitalism plus state administrators."its marx's own words. lets think of some things which define capitalist relations; monopoly over the means of production, wage labour, profit, money, value, commodities… marx recreates these in his own way:
<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. 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.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmwhy cry to me when its marx youre mad at?
>But again you seem to think there is no Engels in Marxismwe were talking about MARX, not marxism, which as i have repeated, marx himself disavowed.
>He doesn't say that in your quotehe literally says that its joever. are you illiterate?
<The working of the industrial system of this country, impossible without a constant and rapid extension of production, and therefore of markets, is coming to a dead stop. Free Trade has exhausted its resources; even Manchester doubts this its quondam economic gospel […] The decennial cycle of stagnation, prosperity, over-production and crisis, ever recurrent from 1825 to 1867, seems indeed to have run its course; but only to land us in the slough of despond of a permanent and chronic depression. The sighed for period of prosperity will not come; as often as we seem to perceive its heralding symptoms, so often do they again vanish into air […] we can almost calculate the moment when the unemployed losing patience will take their own fate into their own hands.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p6.htm>Your first quote said "might be" and you said "destiny" now you use a separate quote and ignore your first quote.youre literally misreading my post. go back and see what i am basing marx's dererminism on.
>>2521081>care to prove me wrong?not necessarily i just want you to confirm that these are your positions and I am not mischaracterizing you:
<Marx was pro-capitalism and anti-socialism<Marx just wanted State Capitalism<Liberalism is pro-socialism and anti-capitalism despite its history of privatization, deregulation, austerity, and union busting<Marxism "colonized" socialism<Lenin doesn't understand MarxAm I correct that these are your positions?
>>2521086>Marx was pro-capitalism and anti-socialismyes
>Marx wanted State Capitalismyes
>Liberalism is pro-socialism and anti-capitalism despite its history of privatization, deregulation, austerity, and union bustingno
>Marxism "colonized" socialismi specifically say it colonised "the left", yes.
>Lenin doesn't understand Marxon the particular point of his influence, yes.
>>2521092no - they said zizek is NOT a marxist
and i presume this anon identifies as a marxist
therefore, anon is "more" marxist than zizek
>>2521098>and i presume this anon identifies >therefore, anon isok but Zizek is a liberal who ran in a liberal party on a platform of privatizing newly balkanized Yugoslavia. This is in line with what Reagan wanted for Yugoslavia: Liberalization. i.e. privatization i.e. capitalism. i.e. not Marxism
>>2521102he is a marxist liberal, as i originally stated.
>>2521106But you say liberalism is the real left and Marxism is anti-left and anti-socialism and pro capitalism.
>>2521107no, but liberalism is at war with itself.
the murray rothbard article is a perfect example:
https://panarchy.org/rothbard/confiscation.htmlhow can an ancap advocate for workers seizing the means of production, nationalising corporations and descendants of slaves receiving reparations? he does nonetheless. so then, even within free market ideology is the pest of capital accumulation. marx equally speaks of the internal contradiction of this in how "primitive accumulation" makes capitalist property sacred while simultaneously negating existing property relations.
>>2521109>But you say liberalism is the real left and Marxism is anti-left and anti-socialism and pro capitalism.yes, but socialism is also of the left. marx opposed socialism with communism, which in his theory is a sublation of capitalism, not an external system.
>>2521122>how can an ancap advocate for workers seizing the means of production, nationalising corporations and descendants of slaves receiving reparations? maybe people lie and rhetoric is different from intention
>>2521126the article isnt long. please read it before replying.
>>2521122>marx opposed socialism with communism, which in his theory is a sublation of capitalism, not an external system.communism is the sublation of capitalism capitalism is the sublation of feudalism, feudalism is the sublation of slavery, slavery is the sublation of primtive communism, or hunter gatherer society as we now call it.
>marxism opposed socialismHe and Engels opposed specifically the movements of their day calling themselves socialist ("so-called socialists") which were pic related.
>>2521136and marx never directly qualifies himself as a "real" socialist or whatever - just a communist. his theory of political transformation is about lower and higher communism, not "socialism" then communism. the ter. he specifically uses for the intermediate stage is "co-operative" society (lower-phase communism).
>>2521144ok but Engels later uses the term Scientific Socialism. Marx never uses that but the Marxist movement comes from not just Marx but also Engels. So I don't see the problem with understanding that the "socialism" Marxists refer to isn't the same "so-called socialism" that Marx and Engels were attacking in the 1840s.
>>2521167you can use whatever term you like, but that doesnt make it textually accurate 🤷🏻♂️
marx purposefully distinguishes communism from all various forms of socialism to make a point, and never returns to reclaim "socialism" for himself, as people do today ("X isnt real socialism"). and its accurate to say that marx's vision of a future society draws its blueprint from the old, as a form of state capitalism.
>the "socialism" Marxists refer tothe issue is that theyre referring to "socialism" to begin with, then getting extremely defensive about defining "real" socialism, when marx was a critic anyway. why not just refer to communism? its less ambiguous.
>>2521175>marx purposefully distinguishes communism from all various forms of socialism to make a point, and never returns to reclaim Marx has never distinguished the two terms ever. The lack of evidence for such distinguishing is evidence enough.
>>2521180>Marx has never distinguished the two terms ever. really? okay, lets just open up the manifesto. first we have to read the prefaces. wonder what they say?
<Yet, 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. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htmhmm. curious. 🤷🏻♂️😅🙄
>>2521180please don't enter the argument other people are having with this dude to say something wrong so he can feel smug.
>>2521175>marx purposefully distinguishes communism from all various forms of socialism existing in 1847
>to make a pointthat point being
<in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movementBut the Socialist tradition following Marx and Engels is a proletarian movement, not a petty bourgeois movement. Why you insist on being confused about this is beyond me. Spam more emojis though.
>>2521188>But the Socialist tradition following Marx and Engels is a proletarian movement, not a petty bourgeois movement.is it? marxism lost its proletarian edge in the early 20th century and is now sidelined to marginal academic interest, while its popularisers are nothing more than its vulgarisers. as i have previously written, the leaders of communist movements have exclusively been intellectuals, not wage workers, and what is actual in the interests of workers is what lenin rightfully diagnoses as the compromise of "trade union consciousness", hence his stipulation of a bourgeois intelligentsia, such as those who founded the very concept of socialism, including marx and engels. it seems mistaken to call marxism "proletarian" in any case, even if this was marx's dim fantasy:
<I applaud your idea of publishing the translation of “Das Kapital” as a serial. In this form the book will be more accessible to the working class, a consideration which to me outweighs everything else.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p2.htmagain, we can either conclude that marxism *was* a proletarian movement, but like all socialisms, it is absorbed into middle-class myopia.
>Why you insist on being confused about this is beyond meis there a difference between being a socialist and a communist?
>>2521185Acknowledging that one of your terms has been stolen by revisionists is not distinguishing them in theory.
>>2521187Did you feel smug writing this, slowpoke? I insist on ending this discussion because it is frustrating to watch.
>>2521200>is there a difference between being a socialist and a communist?There is no official difference.
>>2521205>Acknowledging that one of your terms has been stolen by revisionists is not distinguishing them in theory.you appear to have not read the manifesto.
>There is no official difference.so what defines a socialist?
>>2521208>you appear to have not read the manifesto.Incorrect. Your literacy is simply poor.
>so what defines a socialist?Why don’t you go read the manifesto and find out
>>2521215so we're at this stage now, where the simplest questions stop you in your tracks. 🙄
im sure you identify as a socialist. so then, what makes you a socialist?
>>2521219>im sure you identify as a socialist. so then, what makes you a socialistWhat makes you a communist? There’s your answer. Don’t play.
>>2521226what? 🤨
so we've gone from rational discussion, to simple questions, to complete incoherence. witness the incredible fortitude of the marxist mind…
>identifies as a socialist<cant explain what makes him a socalistbrilliant stuff. i definitely trust you to lead society.
>>2521230>to complete incoherenceBy the stars, your illiteracy is off the charts.
>cant explain what makes him a socalistYou mean I wont explain it to someone who is obviously attempting to distract from the original conversation.
>i definitely trust you to lead society.I don’t particularly care.
>>2521236what "original conversation"?
you said there is no difference between being a socialist and being a communist, so i asked you to define what it means to be a socialist and you've utterly malfunctioned. you were so confident before, now you cower before the very terms you've set. its bizarre and off-putting.
>>2521239>what "original conversation">a socialist and being a communist, so i asked you to define what it means to be a socialist andI answered that it was same as what it means to be a communist. You couldn’t handle the answer, and now you attempt to drag out the conversation by being utterly ridiculous.
>>2521244>I answered that it was same as what it means to be a communist.no, you said:
>>2521226>What makes you a communist?why cant you answer the question?
>You couldn’t handle the answeryou didnt give me an answer, you gave me a question.
why are you being so weird about this?
since you are a socialist, what exactly does that mean?
>>2521130from the very first paragraph of this 1969 article, Rothbard refers to anti-communism as "de-socializing."
>Suppose, for example, that Messers. Brezhnev and Co. become converted to the principles of a free society; they then ask our anti-Communists, all right, how do we go about de-socializing? What could our anti-Communists offer them?But you said Communism was anti-socialist.
>This question has been essentially answered by the exciting developments of Tito’s Yugoslavia. Beginning in 1952, Yugoslavia has been de-socializing at a remarkable rate. and that rate increased in the 90s when Zizek and his ilk advocated for privatization
> The principle the Yugoslavs have used is the libertarian “homesteading” one: the state-owned factories to the workers that work in them! The nationalized plants in the “public” sector have all been transferred in virtual ownership to the specific workers who work in the particular plants, thus making them producers’ coops, and moving rapidly in the direction of individual shares of virtual ownership to the individual worker.If Rothbard were really just advocating for cooperatives where every worker owns shares, I wouldn't see the problem with this, and neither would Engels (pics related)
>What other practicable route toward destatization could there be? The principle in the Communist countries should be: land to the peasants and the factories to the workers, thereby getting the property out of the hands of the State and into private, homesteading hands.There were and are no fully Communist countries when Rothbard wrote this. Just socialist countries governed by Communist parties. Countries which were under siege by imperialism and had a state to defend themselves from the capitalist imperialist world that did and still does exist. Rothbard wants these states disarmed, dismantled and given to the workers to live in a sort of decentralized market socialist anarchy with no governing body… which would greatly weaken them in the face of coups, embargoes, sanctions, etc. carried out by the imperialists. Why did Rothbard want this? Charitably one would assume he merely naive about imperialism. That he didn't know about or think about the fact that socialist governments were under siege.
>The homesteading principle means that the way that unowned property gets into private ownershipprivate ownership? Without a state to enforce it by law?
>is by the principle that this property justly belongs to the person who finds, occupies, and transforms it by his labor.Ok. Let's see where he's going with this
> This is clear in the case of the pioneer and virgin land. But what of the case of stolen property?Is this not the principle by which indigenous nations people were expelled from their land? Because it was "virgin land" that they had "failed" to "improve?"
>Suppose, for example, that A steals B’s horse. Then C comes along and takes the horse from A. Can C be called a thief? Certainly not, for we cannot call a man a criminal for stealing goods from a thief. On the contrary, C is performing a virtuous act of confiscation, for he is depriving thief A of the fruits of his crime of aggression, and he is at least returning the horse to the innocent “private” sector and out of the “criminal” sector. C has done a noble act and should be applauded. Of course, it would be still better if he returned the horse to B, the original victim. But even if he does not, the horse is far more justly in C’s hands than it is in the hands of A, the thief and criminal.This is just stupid. If someone steals your car, and then I steal your car from them without giving it back, I am still going to jail. Even if I did give it back I might still be mistaken for the original thief. There is no legal system, capitalist, socialist, or other, in the world where where I would be praised for stealing something that was stolen and then keeping it for myself.
>Let us now apply our libertarian theory of property to the case of property in the hands of, or derived from, the State apparatus. The libertarian sees the State as a giant gang of organized criminals, who live off the theft called “taxation” and use the proceeds to kill, enslave, and generally push people around.But what of the class character of the state?
>Therefore, any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible. Let's apply this thinking to the USA, where there is a revolving door between the private and public sector. Captitalists like Dick Chney exit the private sector, get into the public sector, sabotage it, defund it, deregulate it, and then finally privatize it. When a public school system that children go to for free is privatized and kids now have to pay tuition (as we saw in New Orleans after Katrina) is that Rothbard's idea of "liberating" property fromt he state?
>Any person or group who liberates such property, who confiscates or appropriates it from the State, is performing a virtuous act and a signal service to the cause of liberty.These proposed acts have various contexts and consequences. By Rothbard's logic Yeltsin is a hero for shelling parliament and privatizing the Russian economy.
>In the case of the State, furthermore, the victim is not readily identifiable as B, the horse-owner. All taxpayers, all draftees, all victims of the State have been mulcted. How to go about returning all this property to the taxpayers? What proportions should be used in this terrific tangle of robbery and injustice that we have all suffered at the hands of the State? Often, the most practical method of de-statizing is simply to grant the moral right of ownership on the person or group who seizes the property from the State. and what institution, if not the state, is responsible granting "the moral right of ownership?"
>Of this group, the most morally deserving are the ones who are already using the property but who have no moral complicity in the State’s act of aggression. What does it mean to be morally deserving and what institution decides this?
>These people then become the “homesteaders” of the stolen property and hence the rightful owners.How is this enforced?
>Take, for example, the State universities. This is property built on funds stolen from the taxpayers. Since the State has not found or put into effect a way of returning ownership of this property to the taxpaying public, the proper owners of this university are the “homesteaders”, those who have already been using and therefore “mixing their labor” with the facilities. The prime consideration is to deprive the thief, in this case the State, as quickly as possible of the ownership and control of its ill-gotten gains, to return the property to the innocent, private sector. This means student and/or faculty ownership of the universities.What if the students and faculty disagree with one another on how to use the university… and wait… if the faculty, janitorial staff, etc. are the workers who produce the university's services, aren't the students just consumers of those services? How does this work in practice?
>As between the two groups, the students have a prior claim, for the students have been paying at least some amount to support the university whereas the faculty suffer from the moral taint of living off State funds and thereby becoming to some extent a part of the State apparatus.Oh so Rothbard actually sees the consumers of the state university's services as less complicit in the evil of the state than the teachers, janitors, cafeteria workers, librarians, etc. who provide those services? So it's not really about the worker, for rothbard, but about the consumers?
>The same principle applies to nominally “private” property which really comes from the State as a result of zealous lobbying on behalf of the recipient. Columbia University, for example, which receives nearly two-thirds of its income from government, is only a “private” college in the most ironic sense. It deserves a similar fate of virtuous homesteading confiscation.Confiscating by the consumers, the students, and not the faculty, though, since the faculty, for Rothbard is complicit in the evil of the state?
>But if Columbia University, what of General Dynamics? What of the myriad of corporations which are integral parts of the military-industrial complex, which not only get over half or sometimes virtually all their revenue from the government but also participate in mass murder? What are their credentials to “private” property? Surely less than zero.Ah so the bourgeois merchants of death are not the REAL private sector, for Rothbard, but some kind of fake evil private sector that get all their money from the bourgeois dictatorship? That's an interesting perspective I suppose, but I think it is telling that these bourgeois death merchants love to overthrow socialist countries governed by Communist parties.
>As eager lobbyists for these contracts and subsidies, as co-founders of the garrison state, they deserve confiscation and reversion of their property to the genuine private sector as rapidly as possible. To say that their “private” property must be respected is to say that the property stolen by the horsethief and the murderer must be “respected”.This is fine rhetoric and all but in reality I see the libertarian movement collaborating with and working in the bourgeois state, for example, in my country, Libertarians are largely pro-Trump, pro-Imperialism.
>But how then do we go about destatizing the entire mass of government property, as well as the “private property” of General Dynamics? All this needs detailed thought and inquiry on the part of libertarians. One method would be to turn over ownership to the homesteading workers in the particular plants; another to turn over pro-rata ownership to the individual taxpayers.and how is this "turning over" performed in practice?
>But we must face the fact that it might prove the most practical route to first nationalize the property as a prelude to redistribution. Nationalize and then redistribute? But nationalization is carried out by the evil state. Now Rothbard is just proposing a similar strategy to Marxism-Leninism, minus the revolution part where the bourgeois state is smashed and a proletarian state created.
>Thus, how could the ownership of General Dynamics be transferred to the deserving taxpayers without first being nationalized en route? And, further more, even if the government should decide to nationalize General Dynamics—without compensation, of course—per se and not as a prelude to redistribution to the taxpayers, this is not immoral or something to be combatted. For it would only mean that one gang of thieves—the government—would be confiscating property from another previously cooperating gang, the corporation that has lived off the government. I do not often agree with John Kenneth Galbraith, but his recent suggestion to nationalize businesses which get more than 75% of their revenue from government, or from the military, has considerable merit.Well this proposal won't ever be carried out by a government that works for the private sector, and is staffed by people who came from the private sector, and take bribes from people in the private sector. How does Rothbard propose to carry this out?
>Certainly it does not mean aggression against private property, and, furthermore, we could expect a considerable diminution of zeal from the military-industrial complex if much of the profits were taken out of war and plunder. Merely "much of?" Why not take ALL of their profits out of war and plunder?
> And besides, it would make the American military machine less efficient, being governmental, and that is surely all to the good. But why stop at 75%? Fifty per cent seems to be a reasonable cutoff point on whether an organization is largely public or largely private.But again, HOW do you do this?
>And there is another consideration. Dow Chemical, for example, has been heavily criticized for making napalm for the U.S. military machine. The percentage of its sales coming from napalm is undoubtedly small, so that on a percentage basis the company may not seem very guilty; but napalm is and can only be an instrument of mass murder, and therefore Dow Chemical is heavily up to its neck in being an accessory and hence a co-partner in the mass murder in Vietnam. No percentage of sales, however small, can absolve its guilt.no notes
>This brings us to Karl’s [Karl Hess] point about slaves. One of the tragic aspects of the emancipation of the serfs in Russia in 1861 was that while the serfs gained their personal freedom, the land—their means of production and of life, their land was retained under the ownership of their feudal masters. The land should have gone to the serfs themselves, after a while though agriculture is mechanized for under the homestead principle they had tilled the land and deserved its title.
And yet agriculture would have eventually been mechanized anyway, meaning it would be much more practical to have a large amount of land worked by a small number of workers, than for many small parcels of land to be individually managed by individual homesteaders.
>Furthermore, the serfs were entitled to a host of reparations from their masters for the centuries of oppression and exploitation. The fact that the land remained in the hands of the lords paved the way inexorably for the Bolshevik Revolution, since the revolution that had freed the serfs remained unfinished.no notes
>The same is true of the abolition of slavery in the United States. The slaves gained their freedom, it is true, but the land, the plantations that they had tilled and therefore deserved to own under the homestead principle, remained in the hands of their former masters. yes and many of the slaves became sharecroppers usually because they had no other place to go and no other skills or education. but eventually agriculture was mechanized and even that ended.
>Furthermore, no reparations were granted the slaves for their oppression out of the hides of their masters. Hence the abolition of slavery remained unfinished, and the seeds of a new revolt have remained to intensify to the present day. no notes
>Hence, the great importance of the shift in Negro demands from greater welfare handouts to “reparations”, reparations for the years of slavery and exploitation and for the failure to grant the Negroes their land, the failure to heed the Radical abolitionist’s call for “40 acres and a mule” to the former slaves. no notes
>In many cases, moreover, the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed.no notes
>Alan Milchman, in the days when he was a brilliant young libertarian activist, first pointed out that libertarians had misled themselves by making their main dichotomy “government” vs. “private” with the former bad and the latter good. Government, he pointed out, is after all not a mystical entity but a group of individuals, “private” individuals if you will, acting in the manner of an organized criminal gang. But this means that there may also be “private” criminals as well as people directly affiliated with the government. What we libertarians object to, then, is not government per se but crime, this seems to me a rhetorical sleight of hand given the above content of the article
>what we object to is unjust or criminal property titlesin practice "criminal" is a category decided upon by law, which is decided upon by a ruling class through the apparatus of a state.
>what we are for is not “private” property per se but just, innocent, non-criminal private property. who decides what matches that criteria and how do they formalize and implement that decision without a state?
>It is justice vs. injustice, innocence vs. criminality that must be our major libertarian focus.This seems muddled and confused in general.
>>2521200>again, we can either conclude that marxism *was* a proletarian movement, but like all socialisms, it is absorbed into middle-class myopia.in the imperial core, maybe
>>2521250>no, you said: >>2521226 (You) (You)That was the same thing, but much less explicit m. I should have dumbed it down for you, my apologies.
>why cant you answer the questionI already did, Mr. Baiter
>you didnt give me an answer, you gave me a question.The question was the answer you illiterate fool. I am so sorry I decided to engage in such wordplay with your feeble mind.
>why are you being so weird about thisThe feeling is mutual, Mr. Baiter.
>since you are a socialist, what exactly does that mean?The same as what it means to be a communist. Go read the manifesto for the exact details on what makes a communist.
>>2521265>are you are a socialist?<yes>what does that mean?<it means being a communist>what does that mean?<it means being a socialistad infinitum
what an intellectual. 🤒
>>2521268>ad infinitumGo read the manifesto
>>2521269>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.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmthis you?
>>2521273Yes it is. Correct.
>>2521268>>are you are a socialist?><yes>>what does that mean?><it means being a communist>>what does that mean?><it means being a socialist>ad infinitumSounds based.
>>2521259>But you said Communism was anti-socialist.i said marx was anti-socialist, and marx described his own ideology as communism. if rothbard confuses the two, thats the issue of marxists who have conflated the terms.
>If Rothbard were really just advocating for cooperatives where every worker owns shares, I wouldn't see the problem with thisgreat.
>There were and are no fully Communist countries when Rothbard wrote this. Just socialist countries governed by Communist parties.whats the difference?
>Rothbard wants these states disarmed, dismantled and given to the workers to live in a sort of decentralized market socialist anarchy with no governing body […] Why did Rothbard want this? to weaken communist governments?
>What does it mean to be morally deserving and what institution decides this?he already explains. those who use the means of production acquire a legitimate right to them.
>Is this not the principle by which indigenous nations people were expelled from their land? Because it was "virgin land" that they had "failed" to "improve?"the principle is theft, no? like marx's comments on the "clearing of the estates", which led to a genocide of scottish populations.
>This is just stupid. If someone steals your car, and then I steal your car from them without giving it back, I am still going to jail.yes, but rothbard is saying that its still better that you steal from someone who doesnt deserve something than from someone who does. we make this calculation in common sense terms, where we see that its better to tax the rich than the poor.
>and what institution, if not the state, is responsible granting "the moral right of ownership?" if we have a democracy, then the state confers the will of the people - so its within the social contract.
>So it's not really about the worker, for rothbard, but about the consumers?the students are still working at the school to rothbard.
>This is fine rhetoric and all but in reality I see the libertarian movement collaborating with and working in the bourgeois statewell, rothbard is speaking in purely theoretical terms, not realistic terms.
>Nationalize and then redistribute? But nationalization is carried out by the evil state. Now Rothbard is just proposing a similar strategy to Marxism-Leninismnationalisation is now claimed by marxists? why do you think every political innovation belongs to you?
>yes and many of the slaves became sharecroppers usually because they had no other place to go and no other skills or education. but eventually agriculture was mechanized and even that ended.they were promised 40 acres and a mule - and rothbard sees that you can simply monetise the reparations anyway.
>in practice "criminal" is a category decided upon by law, which is decided upon by a ruling class through the apparatus of a state.it depends. property has both a natural law and civic law. the homesteading principle assigns ownership as a natural category which then becomes accustomed to state protection. but also, libertarians are often very critical of the state and the ruling class.
>who decides what matches that criteria and how do they formalize and implement that decision without a state?i presume rothbard supports a state to set the terms.
>This seems muddled and confused in general.why? its the most concise conclusion he comes up with. he is getting at the principle of property rights. as anarchists say, the only goal is social order. the state is often the cause of disorder, often being a criminal enterprise itself, setting up violent gangs like the police to oppress citizens by their absolute power.
>>2521275what party are you a member of?
>>2521311so how are you part of the most advnced members of the proletarian parties (i.e. a communist)?
>>2521314>Having found themselves in 1844-45 in agreement on some of the basic principles of Marxism, Marx and Engels were to embark on a lifetime collaboration involving both the further development of their theoretical ideas and the attempt “to win over the European and in the first place the German proletariat”. [8] From the beginning of 1846, based on Brussels, they initiated the setting up of Communist Correspondence Committees, notably in Belgium, Britain, France and Germany. These were to concern themselves with the internal affairs of what Engels was later to call “the Communist Party in the process of formation” [9]; though in this period both he and Marx were speaking of “the Communist Party” and “our party” [10] in the traditional sense of a société de pensée – however with them it was seen as expressing the interests of a class – rather than a political organization in anything approaching the modern sense. Among those who received the lithographed circulars and pamphlets issued from Brussels were the leaders of the League of the Just which, formed in 1836, was a small international secret society, consisting mainly of German artisans, that in recent years had particularly concerned itself with setting up and working within workers’ educational associations. This was the organization that Marx and Engels now entered on the invitation of its leaders who indicated that they were convinced of the general correctness of their views and agreed to their stipulation that the old conspiratorial forms related to the organization’s Blanquist past should be scrapped. [11] At a congress in the summer of 1847, it was reorganized as the League of Communists, adopting new rules giving it official Communist aims at a second congress at the end of the year. A new and thoroughly democratic constitution laid down that annual congresses were “the legislative authority of the League” and provided for the electivity, accountability and revocability at any time by their electors of all leading committees. [12] It was as a “detailed theoretical and practical programme” of the League [13] that Marx and Engels were commissioned to write their famous Manifesto of the Communist Party.
>The previous year in his polemic against Proudhon, Marx had described the Socialists and Communists as “the theoreticians of the proletarian class”. [17] Now he and Engels present the Communists as the theoretical vanguard of the class which has “no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole” and does not “set up any sectarian [18] principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement”. They were distinguished from “the other working class parties” only in that in national struggles “they point out and bring to the forefront the common interests of the entire proletariat, independent of all nationality” and that, in the various stages of the struggle against the bourgeoisie, “they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole”. They were in their practice “the most advanced and resolute section of the working class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others”, whilst in their theory they had “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” [19], which they conceived as “the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”. [20]
>Just as the economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class, so the Socialists and Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm
>When in the late summer of 1850 Marx concluded that European capitalism had entered a period of prosperity and there would be no new revolution in the period ahead, he was faced with opposition from an important section of League members headed by Willich and Schapper. Combating their voluntarism he said that, instead of studying the real conditions, they had made “the will alone into the driving force of revolution”. [70a] The League in London split on this issue and the Central Committee was transferred back to Cologne where it functioned for a while until its members were arrested and, in November 1852, sentenced by a Cologne court. Shortly afterwards the League in London was dissolved on Marx’s proposal and its “continuation on the continent declared to be no longer opportune”. [71]
>III
>After the split in the Communist League in the autumn of 1850 and even before its formal dissolution two years later, Marx and Engels had begun to withdraw into an “authentic isolation” [72], preferring the “position of the independent writer” to that of “the so-called revolutionary party”. [73] The relief expressed by Marx to Engels on 11 February 1851 at the end of “the system of mutual concessions, of inadequacies endured for the sake of appearances” [74], was matched by Engels’ joy two days later that from now on they were responsible to themselves alone. [75] “How do people like us, who flee official positions like the plague, fit into a ‘party’?” he thunders. “What good to us, who spit on popularity … is a ‘party’, i.e. a band of asses who swear by us because they take us for the likes of them?” [76] Strong words – but it would be wrong, as Franz Mehring says, to take the actual expressions used too seriously [77], and totally indefensible to divorce them from their actual context and argue, as Bertram Wolfe does, that they represent their real private opinions about the party to be contrasted with statements made by them thirty and forty years later (some of which he quotes) which were “written for the eyes of others”. [78] They reflect the frustrations of the first difficult period of exile after the defeat of the revolution and the recognition that no new one was impending. They represent their reaction to the “petty squabbles” [79] of the emigration [80], from which they were withdrawing in order to return to their studies, interrupted since 1848, in the hope of gaining, above all in the sphere of political economy, “a scientific victory for our party”. [81]>What however was this “party” of which they continued to speak after the dissolution of the Communist League in 1852, in a period when, as Marx wrote to the poet Freiligrath in 1860, he “never again belonged … to any secret or public society” [82], and considered that his “theoretical works were of greater benefit to the working class than participation in associations whose days on the continent were over”? [83] What we have here is not a party in the normal sense that Engels was using when he indicated in December 1852 that “no political party can exist without an organization” [84], but rather in the first instance a return to the use of the term that we saw them make in the mid-’40s to designate Marx and the small band broadly sharing his basic views, whom the Prussian police reports as well as Marx’s supporters in this period refer to as the “Marx party”. [85] Already in March 1853, within four months of the dissolution of the League, Marx is writing to Engels: “We must definitely recruit our party afresh”, since the few adherents that he names, despite their qualities, do not add up to a party. [86] They aimed to get this group – “our clique”, as Engels calls them fairly jocularly in a letter to Weydemeyer in America in 1853 [87] – to prepare themselves by study for the revolutionary struggles that they were confident lay ahead. [88] Marx was anxious to co-ordinate the public activities of the members of this “party embryo”, as Wilhelm Liebknecht was to call it later. [89] When, in 1859, Lassalle published a pamphlet on the Italian war of that year expressing a point of view with which they disagreed, Marx wrote to Engels criticising their wayward comrade’s failure first to apprise himself of their opinion. “We must insist on party discipline or everything will land in the dirt”, he added. [90]>Marx however also spoke of “our party” in a more transcendental sense as when in 1860, in the letter to Freiligrath from which I have already quoted, he counterposed to the party in the “ephemeral sense”, which in the shape of the Communist League had, he said, “ceased to exist for me eight years ago” [91], “the party in the great historical sense”. [92] The Communist League, like Blanqui’s Société des Saisons and hundreds of other societies, “was only an episode in the history of the Party, which is growing everywhere spontaneously from the soil of modern society”. [93] For Marx the party in this sense was the embodiment of his conception of the “mission” of the working class [94], concentrating in itself “the revolutionary interests of society” [95], to accomplish “the historical tasks which automatically arose” from its general conditions of existence. [96] It was in this sense also that Marx understood the term “party” when he reported to Engels in 1859 that he had told a deputation from an émigré German workers’ group: “We had received our appointment as representatives of the proletarian party from nobody but ourselves. It was, however, endorsed by the exclusive and universal hatred consecrated to us by all the parties and fractions of the old world.” [97] Does this statement indicate a “conception of charismatic election” [98], and strains of “prophetism” [99] in Marx? Leaving aside the somewhat arrogant form in which the claim is made (and Marx could certainly be arrogant, especially when in these difficult years of poverty and ill-health he was stung by the follies of some of his fellow-exiles), there remains the idea of Marx and Engels seeing themselves, by virtue of their scientifically evolved theoretical understanding as a locum tenens for the German working class party [100], which for the moment enjoyed only a “theoretical existence”. [101] This is however a temporary and exceptional conception for them, a special case in no way typical of the mainstream of their thought, which is found only at this early stage in the life of the still little developed German working class in the hiatus between the disappearance of the Communist League and the appearance of new working class organizations that they were confident would emerge to take its place. [102] They were decidedly not trying to substitute themselves for such organizations which at that time did not exist. After a real movement came once more into existence in the 1860s they never again saw themselves as self-appointed representatives of the proletarian party. On the contrary, wherever a real working class movement existed and struggled against the existing order, even when it was led by people with whom they had strong theoretical differences, they identified themselves with it and saw it as a manifestation of the party “in the great historical sense”. Thus Marx was to tell Kugelmann that the Paris Commune was “the most glorious deed of our Party since the June insurrection in Paris” [103] in much the same way that Engels was to refer to the Commune as “without any doubt the child of the International intellectually, although the International did not lift a finger to produce it.” [104] In 1892, writing for French Socialists on the movement in Germany, Engels stressed that he was speaking “only in my own name, in no wise in the name of the German party. Only the selected committees and delegates of this party have the right to do that”. >The formation of the First International in 1864 gave Marx (and somewhat later Engels) [108] the opportunity to break out of their relative isolation and join up with the Western European labour movement that was now reviving on a much wider scale than its continental predecessor of the 1840s. Whilst not abandoning his theoretical work, Marx turned his attention more and more right up to the Hague Congress of 1872 to organizing, uniting and leading this broad international federation of affiliated working class organizations. Like the Communist League, the International was not founded by Marx and Engels but sprang spontaneously from the labour movement of the time [109], to which by virtue of their theoretical and intellectual pre-eminence [110] they came to give direction and perspective. Unlike the Communist League [111], however, they did not at any stage regard the International as a Communist Party. Nor did they operate with their supporters as an organized party, fraction or secret society inside the broad framework of the International. [112] Nonetheless, in speaking in the Inaugural Address of the International of “numbers … united by combination and led by knowledge” [113], Marx was broadly paraphrasing his party concept of the fusion of Socialist theory with the labour movement [114], and in the International especially after the Paris Commune he and Engels were to develop more fully than hitherto their views on party organization. In contrast to the Communist League with its advanced theoretical programme, Marx framed the International’s programme – the preamble to its Rules that he drew up [115] – “in a form acceptable from the present standpoint of the workers’ movement”, as he told Engels. [116] This movement had to embrace the Liberal leaders of the British trade unions, the French, Italian and Spanish Proudhonists and the German Lassalleans. [117] It admitted both individual members and affiliated organizations. [118] The principle that it should “let every section freely shape its own theoretical programme” [119], led Marx to propose the acceptance of the sections of Bakunin’s International Alliance of Socialist Democracy into the International, which it applied to enter in 1868, despite his very strong objections to its programme and suspicions from the outset of Bakunin’s motives in joining. [120]
>When in 1875 a unity congress was arranged at Gotha between the two German workers’ organizations and a draft programme for the new party was issued, Marx and Engels wrote their famous criticisms of its theoretical insufficiencies [178] for private consideration by leaders of the Eisenachers. “Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes”, wrote Marx. “If, therefore, it was not possible … to go beyond the Eisenach programme, one should simply have concluded an agreement for action against the common enemy”. [179] Despite these misgivings Marx and Engels associated themselves with the new united party and before very long had come to refer to it too as “our party” [180], and at the end of his life Engels was praising the fusion for the “immense increase in strength” that it had brought about. [181]
>Whilst rejoicing at the impressive growth of the new party, Marx and Engels always took up the cudgels when they saw signs of “a vulgarization (Verluderung) of Party and theory” [182] in its ranks. Thus in September 1879 they sent a strongly worded circular to Party leaders criticizing their conciliatory attitude towards certain “representatives of the petty bourgeoisie” [183] who were attempting to “combat the proletarian character of the Party” [184] and thereby acting as “an adulterating element” [185] within it. They found it “incomprehensible” that the Party could “tolerate … in its midst any longer” [186] people who were saying that the workers were too uneducated to emancipate themselves. [187] In 1882 Engels wrote to Bebel that he had no illusions that it would “one day come to a dispute with the bourgeois-inclined elements in the Party and to a separation between the right and left wings” [188], preferably after the Anti-Socialist Law that had been introduced in 1878 had been repealed. [189]>In the last years of his life Engels approved in its broad essentials the line followed by the Party and the new programme that it adopted, after he had criticized its first draft, at the Erfurt Congress of 1891. [190] He expressed his pride in “our” electoral successes which in 1893 he saw approaching the two-million mark and over-optimistically predicted an electoral majority and a Socialist government in power between 1900 and 1910. [191] In 1895, a few months before his death, he worked out in his introduction to The Class Struggles in France 1848-1850 by Marx the theoretical justification of the “entirely new method of proletarian struggle” that had been opened up by the “successful utilisation of universal suffrage” [192], relegating to the past “the time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses”. [193] However, he stressed to Paul Lafargue that the tactics outlined there could not be followed in their entirety in France, Belgium, Italy and Austria and that “in Germany they may become inapplicable tomorrow”. [194]
>The differences are not however absolute and do not represent some inexplicable contradiction in the thought of the founders of scientific socialism. [218] On the contrary, they will be seen as logically complementary if we examine their application, in each case, on the basis of Engels’ explanation, in the letter to Mrs. Kelley Wischnewetsky quoted above, that “our theory is not a dogma but the exposition of a process of evolution, and that process involves successive phases”. [219] Britain and the USA were at this time both countries with substantial industrial working classes that had developed important and often militant industrial organizations, but where those who had understood anything of Socialism were a tiny handful. Here then was an analogy, as Engels pointed out to Sorge, with the part “played by the Communist League among the workers’ associations before 1848” in Germany. [220] And here it was therefore perfectly consistent for him to recommend that American Marxists should “act in the same way as the European Socialists have acted at a time when they were but a small minority of the working class” [221], at the time that the Communist Manifesto indicated that the Communists did “not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties”. [222] Since 1848, however, the position on the continent had advanced considerably. Germany in 1869 and to a lesser extent France in 1880 had reached the stage of having parties developing roots among the working class on the basis of more or less developed Socialist programmes, and any attempt to fuse with other organizations or to win more votes through “adulterating” or scrapping such programmes seemed to Marx and Engels to represent a “decidedly retrograde step”. [223] But for Britain and America, where the workers had been bound politically to bourgeois parties, any move towards a broad united party of their own on however backward a theoretical basis was an advance, the “next great step to be accomplished”. [224]>It was the self-imposed isolation of the main organized bodies of Marxists in the two countries that led Engels to criticize them for being and acting only like sects [225] which “contrived to reduce the Marxist theory of development into a rigid dogma”. [226] It was fundamentally his objection to such “Anglo-Saxon sectarianism” [227], rather than pique at Hyndman’s “tactless” behaviour, as Cole and Postgate [228], and after them Carew Hunt [229], blandly assert, that was responsible for Engels dissociating himself from the Social Democratic Federation in Britain as from the Socialist Labour Party in the United States. However, he thought that these organizations, having “accepted our theoretical programme and so acquired a basis” [230] would have a role to play if they worked among the “still quite plastic mass” of workers as “a core of people who understand the movement and its aims and will therefore themselves take over the leadership” [231] at a later stage. Experience had shown that “it is possible to work along with the general movement of the working class at every one of its stages without giving up or hiding our own distinct position or even organization”. [232] The Marxists would then have a big contribution to make to the emergence of the “ultimate platform” [233] of the labour movement in their countries which “must and will be essentially the same as that now adopted by the whole militant working class of Europe”. [234] At such a stage, Engels doubtless foresaw the coming into being of a “new party” such as more than four decades previously he had predicted would arise from “the union of Socialism with Chartism, the reproduction of French Communism in an English manner” by the fusion of the “theoretically more backward, less developed” but “genuinely proletarian” Chartists with the “more far-seeing” Socialists to make the working class “the true intellectual leader” of their country. [235]>>2521350>>2521314 >>2521350>>2521314>>2521375>Far from “discarding the notion of party … to return to the notion of class” [236], as Sorel asserts, Marx and Engels saw the party as a Moment in the development of the proletariat without which “it cannot act as a class”. For the working class “to be strong enough to win on the decisive day”, Engels wrote to Trier in 1889, it must “form a separate party distinct from all others and opposed to them, a conscious class party”, adding with some oversimplification that this was what “Marx and I have been arguing ever since 1847”. [237] In 1865, in The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers’ Party, which he discussed with Marx before publication, Engels defines the workers’ party, with which he is not in the pamphlet prepared to identify the only existing German workers’ organization of the time, the Lassallean ADAV, as “that part of the working class that has attained consciousness of the separate interests of the class”. [238] When they sometimes speak loosely of the proletarian party as though it were identical with the class as a whole [239], it would seem clear from the contexts that they are referring synecdochically to the class when what they mean in fact is its “politically active portion” [240], which more and more of the class will come to support as it “matures for its self-emancipation”. [241]
>Theoretical consciousness and the Selbsttätigkeit (spontaneous self-activity) of the working class are present, as the key elements in their conception of the proletarian party, in all periods of Marx’s and Engels’ thought and activity from 1844 on, combining in different proportions in different conditions. They always represent complementary factors in the Marxian conception of the evolution of the proletariat to full maturity and Selbstbewusstsein (consciousness), rather than expressing a “’dualism’” in Marx’s thought as Maximilien Rubel, of Paris, argues. [242] Rubel tries to fit Marx’s conception of the party into the Procrustean bed of the highly disputable theory that there is in his work a “fundamental ambiguity” between his materialist sociology and a utopian ethic that he inherited and that serves as his “postulate” for social revolution. [243] With the aid of quotations collected totally a-historically from a wide range of Marx’s and Engels’ writings between 1841 and 1895 he seeks to distinguish “a double conception of the proletarian party” in their work, differentiating between “the sociological concept of the workers’ party, on the one hand, and the ethical concept of the Communist party, on the other.” [244] Karl Marx, asserts Rubel, “distinguishes formally between the workers’ party and the body (ensemble) of Communists whose task is of a theoretical and educative order; the Communists are thus in no wise called to properly political functions”. [245] Being “a form of non-institutionalized representation which represents the proletarian movement, in the ‘historical’ sense of the term”, the latter “cannot identify themselves with a real organization subject to the constraints of political alienation” [246] and “obeying formally established rules and statutes”. [247] The class movement of the proletariat, says Rubel, cannot be identified with the political agitation of parties. “On the contrary”, he goes on, “it is represented by the trade unions if these understand their revolutionary role and fulfil it faithfully”. [248] (This last assertion, endeavouring to present Marx and Engels as Syndicalists, completely ignores inter alia Marx’s and Engels’ rejection before the Eisenach Congress of just such an argument by Johann Philip Becker. [249] “Old Becker must have gone right off his rocker”, Engels wrote to Marx then. “How can he decree that the trades union has to be the true workers’ association and the basis for all organization.” [250])>The Manifesto of the Communist Party, from which Rubel quotes, as well as the whole history of its authors’ party work on which we have drawn, shows absolutely clearly and explicitly that they saw the Communists using their theoretical foresight, which for Rubel is some sort of transcendental ethical quality far removed from the corrupting political struggle, precisely to act politically to “push forward” and give leadership in the political struggles of their time. [251] Moreover the Manifesto was issued as the programme of the Communist League, a political organization “obeying formally established rules and statutes”! >[252] Only in the most exceptional and temporary periods did the Communists operate outside a “real organization”, although – as in the case of the First International – that organization did not always need to be a Communist Party. The latter differed from “other working class parties” [253] in that it had a Communist programme and was guided by Communist theory. However, believing that the workers “from out of their own class feeling” would “work their way up” to an acceptance of Marxist theory [254] with the help of those “whose minds are theoretically clear” to shorten the process considerably [255], Marx and Engels thought that sooner or later many of these other parties would either come to adopt Communist programmes or be absorbed by others that had. In this belief they were strengthened at the end of their lives by the example of German Social Democracy that was developing into the type of essentially Communist mass party towards which they believed that other workers’ parties, from their different starting points and in their own national forms, would ultimately advance. They saw such a fully developed proletarian party representing the fusion of Socialist theory not just with a tiny handful of advanced workers as in the Communist League but with large and growing sections of the working class.https://www.marxists.org/archive/johnstone/1967/xx/me-party.htm >>2521292<i said marx was anti-socialist, and marx described his own ideology as communism. Right. So by proxy you are saying Communism (Marx's ideology) is anti-socialist. Sorry for skipping the intermediate step in your rhetoric.
>if rothbard confuses the two, thats the issue of marxists who have conflated the terms.OK but what was your reason for posting Rothbard in the first place?
>whats the difference?Picture related from Cheng Enfu
>to weaken communist governments? you omitted this part of your quotation of mefor a reson:
< which would greatly weaken them in the face of coups, embargoes, sanctions, etc. carried out by the imperialists. >he already explains. those who use the means of production acquire a legitimate right to them.The most advanced means of production (like factory machinery) have several thousands of people using them, so you're going to have to organize that use collectively
>the principle is theft, no? like marx's comments on the "clearing of the estates", which led to a genocide of scottish populations.right. So if I go to Burkina Faso and I start mining ore on public land that nobody was using yet without the government's permission, am I thieving settler-colonist, or am I merely an enterprising worker abiding by Rothbard's homestead principle?
>yes, but ok but so you admit it's stupid
>rothbard is saying that its still better that you steal from someone who doesnt deserve something than from someone who does. clear aside all the stuff about "deserves" and ask the question of how we reconstruct society so that poverty, and unemployment, and exploitation are as close to impossible as possible.
>if we have a democracy, then the state confers the will of the people - so its within the social contract.it's not a democracy if there is still a ruling class
>the students are still working at the school to rothbard.but they pay tuition so they are consuming a service reserved only for the privileged who can afford it, or secure a loan for it, or secure a scholarship for it, rather than getting paid to train for a job, as they might be under different social systems
>well, rothbard is speaking in purely theoretical terms, not realistic terms.Yes, and that's the problem. The philosophers have interpreted the world, the point is to change it.
>nationalisation is now claimed by marxists? why do you think every political innovation belongs to you?Not what I said remotely. I just think that Rothbard is, in his line of reasoning, admitting the need for a state to nationalize things as a part of his strategy of seizing the means. First he decries the state, but then admits some need for it. If you held him to the same standard as you hold Marxists, you would accuse him of being a state capitalist, like you accuse Marxists of being. But for him nationalization is allowed to be a mere strategy towards the ends of liberation, while for Marxists you treat it as "totalitarianism."
>they were promised 40 acres and a mule - and rothbard sees that you can simply monetise the reparations anyway.right and that promise wasn't followed up on because in reality the North was only historically progressive insofar as it was willing to wage war to keep the union together. Ending slavery was, for them, a side mission, and at the end of the day Capitalism industrialized the south and turned former slaves into wage workers gradually anyway.
>it depends. property has both a natural law and civic law. the homesteading principle assigns ownership as a natural category which then becomes accustomed to state protection. but also, libertarians are often very critical of the state and the ruling class.I am skeptical of the ability to decide what is and isn't a crime without some formalized criteria that is enforced consistently by an organization or institution that performs the role of a state, whether it calls itself that or not.
>i presume rothbard supports a state to set the terms.so what makes Marxists "totalitarian" but Rothbard not, if it's not the state you and he object to?
>why? its the most concise conclusion he comes up with. he is getting at the principle of property rights. as anarchists say, the only goal is social order. the state is often the cause of disorder, it's the ruling class that uses the state to enforce an order which serves them, but seems chaotic to everyone else.
>often being a criminal enterprise itself, setting up violent gangs like the police to oppress citizens by their absolute power.Ok so Rothbard supports a state as you admitted above. Do you or don't you? What is your connection with Rothbard here?
>>2520863right like i said they mutually reinforce one another it is not states that create monopolies but the logic of competition that creates monopolies which lobby for increased state power which they then use to increase monopoly power and so on. states happen without monopoly and in the absence a state monopolies create one to protect themselves. to get rid of the state you have to get rid of private ownership, as marx says.
>>2520862>why would i? a society of slaves is a tyranny.>>2519819>>does the principle of self ownership mean you have a right to sell yourself into slavery? >workers do it every dayso you agree that capitalism is tyranny?
>>2520863what is the meaning of the john pork meme
>>2520913Wow at least half that list are anti-marxist retards. I think I'm starting to understand where your delusions come from.
>>2521014>When someone says "Wow, that's really cool" do you bemoan how the word "cool" is supposed to refer to temperature and that language has been corrupted by the children?No, that would be a 'tism, and Mr Smith has demonstrated they absolutely do understand context they just prefer to lie and "win" arguments by tiring out their opponents through repetition of falsehood and word count. If P then Q when it benefits them and days of P!=Q when it does not.
>>2521081What makes you think you know better than anon? Is it your religious faith in liberalism despite the overwhelming evidence of its shortcomings and failure?
>>2520862>i get it now. but then again, "communism = big gubbermint" appears to be an authentic belief of the marxists i speak to.Communism is a process. As Marx says
>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htmMoney and markets exist in the lower phase of communism,
>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.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm >>2521081>how were they "idealists"? you are making things up again.Precisely because they propose an ideal state of affairs to be established rather than an analysis of the real material conditions that generate social change.
>>2510749>"left"Beijing is west of Los Angeles.
adamn smith anon is a lol cow
>>2520865>This still doesn't define ownership. You own the property you use. That simplifies things, doesn't it? See how I have no problem, while you implode at basic questions?Wrong. The concept of property ownership tends to be separate and exclusive to one owner, who controls, abuses, disposes of, and uses the property, excluding others who participated or are affected. This eventually leads to conflict by denying the social maintenance necessary for its use by others. Property control would have to be collective because it cannot exist individually for one or a group of people without the constant use of violence to deny access to the rest of the population. Therefore, I see no reason to say I am an owner, because this cannot exist as a law of nature.
Ownership will always be a historically created construct to deny access to resources, needs, and what is already socially produced in today's society to others, requiring the state to maintain the ownership class in power. The solution is to organize all of this collectively, considering the use, needs, and socially necessary labor time of workers. To speak of the concept of ownership separate from society would be an illusion, because someone could use a property, but they wouldn't own it if it belonged to a landlord or was privately owned by someone else. Because this separation exists, I'll have to consider it an illusion because use doesn't give you the right to sell and buy this property being used, which could only exist if held collectively.
>right.The democratization of the economy means that the economy will have to be organized collectively, thus having common ownership of the means of production with collective planning, because it can't exist any other way without denying the other part of society, which will lead to conflict. Remember, this will lead to popular councils spreading throughout this private property, which must be coordinated through collective planning, ceasing to be private property.
>wut? more religious eschatology.But this is the logical result of democratizing private property by removing the exclusive owner of this property for collective planning to serve the needs of the population as collective property like cooperatives that do not compete with each other and public property being coordinated by a workers' council in national planning with the rest of the other properties that have become public and collective in the socialist economy or preparing this socialist economy before the socialization of the economy that the dictatorship of the proletariat will do when it assumes power.
>It can in its natural forms, but once we create a society, we engage in social conraction that binds us to the rights of each other in a state. Thus, as Aristotle says, the first unit of a state is the household.Wrong. Initially, scarcity prevents human beings from organizing themselves differently than a tribe in a village with common property for the entire population. Only when more advanced technology is available to accumulate food and coerce other tribes does private property begin to emerge among the new owners, creating a separate entity that alienates itself from the rest of society. This new ruling class of owners pits the propertyless, subjugated workers against other owners who will come into conflict with each other. Thus, the relationship between slave and slave owner, serf versus feudal lord, capitalist versus proletarian, and here the state is something constructed to serve the function of one class oppressing another. Therefore, liberation comes from the abolition of private property, which competes with public collective property, which will be organized in association. Private property cannot exist in a state of nature.
>okay, so two workers in a history of millions have ever been paeticularly revolutionary? not looking great 🤣Let's look at more examples then. Ivan Babushkin was a metalworker and railway worker, an agitator in factories working with Lenin. Alexei Badayev was a proletarian who worked in a factory in Petersburg and was a proletarian revolutionary, having been elected to the 4th Duma as a workers' deputy, organized strikes, and was imprisoned multiple times. If there are no revolutionary proletarians, how could this be possible? Matvei Muranov was a railroad worker and Bolshevik deputy in the Duma, known for defiant revolutionary speeches and arrested repeatedly. Again, how is this possible without revolutionary proletarians? Stepan Khalturin was a carpenter who worked in several factories in St. Petersburg, joined Narodnaya Volya, and planted a bomb in the Winter Palace to assassinate the Tsar while working as a laborer. Alexander Parkhomenko was a factory worker who radicalized several soldiers and prepared the formation of the Bolshevik Red Guard in the place where he was active to serve the proletarian class. Alexander Parkhomenko was also one of the commanders in the civil war.
>>2521389>What is your connection with Rothbard here?There is no connection between what Mr Smith posts and what, if anything, he actually thinks. After all you cannot be wrong if you dont even have a position!
>>2521773if i was a joke people would laugh instead of getting insanely angry and stupefied when i quote marx back to them. im surrounded by the mentall ill.
>>2521546>half that list are anti-marxist retardsthey all identify as marxian, the same as you.
>they just prefer to liegive me one lie ive told. if you cant think of one, then you must understand that youve deranged yourself for no reason.
>>2521576>Money and markets exist in the lower phase of communismnot to marx. read the whole chapter, please.
>Precisely because they propose an ideal state of affairssuch as?
>>2521660marx already defined communism as the government owning everything. the state exists as an instrument of class war, therefore when everything is in the state, nothing can exist outside of it.
>>2521662political economy = economy of the state or nation
>>2521824you seem preoccupied with a random stranger on the internet. please log off for your own sanity.
>>2521777do you own your phone?
>>2521481>so you agree that capitalism is tyranny?capitalism is an oligarchy (rule of the few). a tyranny is a form of popular dictatorship (the rule of a tyrant, which aristotle sees as a type of monarchy). my rhetoric on that was to say that a society which empowers slaves as a polis becomes a tyranny, but granting slaves the rights of citizenship allows for a democracy (the rule of citizenry). aristotle therefore says that the more slaves you create, the more tyrannical society becomes, and so property ought to be distributed amongst the citizenry. a slave back then is what we would call a wage worker, while a citizen is the owner of a household and/or land. thus as lenin says, democracy for the greeks was democracy for the slave owners. cynical but accurate 😅 i think the advanced concept of αὐτάρκεια (self-sufficiency) is also crucial of bridging ethics and politics, since it allows us to overcome the codependence of slavery.
>>2521478>they mutually reinforce one anotherare you illiterate? the appropriation of common land by private owners has no principle in the market, but only by theft and murder through the bourgeois dictatorship.
>>2521389>So by proxy you are saying Communism (Marx's ideology) is anti-socialist. Sorry for skipping the intermediate step in your rhetoric.marx never advocated for socialism, only communism, of a lower and higher order.
>OK but what was your reason for posting Rothbard in the first place? to demonstrate the homestead principle, or labour theory of property (which i have successfully demonstrated as canonical with the labour theory of value).
>Picture related from Cheng Enfuenfu is free to disagree with marx; plenty do.
>The most advanced means of production (like factory machinery) have several thousands of people using them, so you're going to have to organize that use collectivelyyes; but what is even more abstract is his notion that students have a right to own public universities, so its not a terribly difficult thing for rothbard to theorise
>So if I go to Burkina Faso and I start mining ore on public land that nobody was using yet without the government's permission, am I thieving settler-colonist, or am I merely an enterprising worker abiding by Rothbard's homestead principle? it depends on what you see as legitimate. to rothbard, all public property is a form of theft, so it woulf be the example of stealing from a thief.
>clear aside all the stuff about "deserves" and ask the question of how we reconstruct societyi have already proven that the claims of labour only have validity if there is a concept of theft given to exploitation. when you complain about "poverty" what youre really saying is that poverty is due to the theft performed by capitalists and so rightful property should be returned, no?
>it's not a democracy if there is still a ruling classit depends.
>The philosophers have interpreted the world, the point is to change it.philosophers change the world with their ideas. if you didnt believe this, you wouldnt read anybody.
>But for him nationalization is allowed to be a mere strategy towards the ends of liberation, while for Marxists you treat it as "totalitarianism."totalitarianism is ᴉuᴉlossnW's ideology; everything in the state, nothing outside the state. this is very different from mere nationalisation.
>Capitalism industrialized the south and turned former slaves into wage workers gradually anyway.wage workers are still slaves.
>I am skeptical of the ability to decide what is and isn't a crime without some formalized criteriathats fair. i would say very generally that crime is the presence of a sustained disorder, or else, the violation of personal rights by forceful appropriation or exploitation. when there is perfect order, there can be no crime. of course, its important to formally establish the law, and so the most perfect law code is the briefest, such that the most efficient police force is the least populated. the more laws you create, the more disorder, by subsuming the civil under the legal. so then, more law means more disorder. its a paradox but its true.
>so what makes Marxists "totalitarian" but Rothbard not, if it's not the state you and he object to?i dont object to the state; i object to a totalitarian state.
>it's the ruling class that uses the state to enforce an order which serves themthis is then an illegitimate form of government since it does not rest upon the consent of the governed (locke) or the general will of the people (rousseau).
>What is your connection with Rothbard here?locke.
>>2521773pretty sure he has a humiliation fetish
>>2521982>when you complain about "poverty" what youre really saying is that poverty is due to the theft performed by capitalists and so rightful property should be returned, no? not exactly, it is entirely possible for a society to have poverty without theft. Like a huntger gatherer society for example. But I suppose the perception of poverty is relative. I possibly have a higher standard of living than a bronze age government official in Egypt, despite being of a lower social status in my society. But the wealth of society is produced collectively, yet comes to rest in the legal possession of a few individuals through the contrivance of private property. The point isn't that they "stole" it, they may have "rightfully inherited it" the point is that there is massive inequality. Some people have more money than they can possibly spend in several lifetimes, and others are in debt. Some have fleets of boats cars and planes that they never even ride in, stored in garages and warehouses, while others are stuck fixing up 20 year old rustbuckets to get to work. Some receive education and access to wonderful resources for self improvement, and others are stuck in crime-ridden drug-addled environments full of distractions.
>>2521982>philosophers change the world with their ideas. if you didnt believe this, you wouldnt read anybody.There's a lot of variables at play. If a philosopher writes something but nobody ever reads it, his ideas change nothing. But also whether or not a person reads someone in the first place is heavily dependent on their pre-existing biases, and other things, like the political climate. For example I started reading Marx because conservatives and reactionaries would call me a Marxist when I disagreed with them. That alone got me interested in Marx. So it's not always the person themselves but their enemies that rally interest.
>>2521982>enfu is free to disagree with marx; plenty do.I am sure that, like many, he agrees with most of Marx and Engels, but deviates in some respects based on factors like what has come to pass in history since Marx and Engels died, or local conditions. Hence the images posted in
>>2521259 where Engels elaborates, towards the end of his own life, the need for a sort of evolutionary flexibility, and non-dogmatism in what Marx called "the real movement."
>>2522702What if the capitalists push anti-Marxism to get their enemies to read him because they know he's a wrong dead end and they're trying to hide the REAL 19th century revolutionary that's so obscure no one knows about him except a small circle of followers carrying the light through the ages. Dan Brown get on this.
>>2521979>do you own your phone?Any electronic device I use, I share with others close to me, so everything is decided by consensus to avoid creating conflict. Perhaps for you, it would mean not owning it, but if you only consider it to be a consensus based on needs, then I would say yes, collectively with others who also use it with me. If you consider this ability to own it to mean something more, then I would say no if it ignores social responsibility to others and collective decision-making based on needs.
>>2521773There is a great (and by great I mean asinine) discussion on
>>>/edu/19860 where Smith Anon shares his hallucinations about the nature of debt and gift giving and gets out-autismed on the finer points of German law. (ctrl-f for
Scoobydologist to get to the starting point). In the end he is completely buck-broken and even loses his ability to speak in grammatically correct sentences.
>>2522709>I am sure that, like many, he agrees with most of Marx and Engels, but deviates in some respects based on factors like what has come to pass in history since Marx and Engels died, or local conditions. I agree, but I would also say that if you deviate in some respects based on factors like what has come to pass, but completely agree with his method of analysis, then you completely agree and that overrides the deviation.
Some might take the idea that Marx predicted revolution would occur first in the advanced countries, you could take this as evidence he is wrong, or you could say you disagree, or you could say the fact that it occurred in underdeveloped backwards nations first proves you right and him wrong.
But all of this misses the analysis that brought him to his conclusion: that the logic of market competition under capitalism necessitates the implementation of technological improvements in the production process that increases the ratio of the organic composition of capital resulting in a declining profit rate which causes a crisis of overproduction as capitalists are left with only the reduction of wages to increase their profits bringing the contradiction of social labor with private profit to a resolution especially as those companies that fail to implement these measures will be outcompeted resulting in consolidation of productive forces into monopoly which will enable them to further leverage to exploit the masses of workers.
That analysis remains correct, so if we take the skeleton of this out from the 1850s and transport it to 1910s and fill in the new information we find that Marx correctly analyzed everything that had occurred while he was still alive, and made an inconsequential extrapolation that turned out to be incorrect from the data available, but also that he had already begun the analysis of monopoly capitalism, albiet while limiting the scope of his study to trade intranationally rather than internationally as the trade in his time was not yet predominantly global to the extent that it later became.
This is where Lenin comes in and applies the same framework Marx created and brings in new data for events that have since occurred, and from this we get his theory of Imperialism which using Marx's analysis explains exactly why revolution would indeed happen in the most materially immiserated and impoverished nations first instead of the most exploited in the technical meaning of the word. And all of this is exactly in line with and even explicitly prefigured in the text from Marx and Engels previous work. Its not a refutation but validation of their method.
>>2523096Same here, they seemingly "disagree" for completely opposite reasons, ironically relating to Agent Smiths favorite topic. Marx critiqued Mercantilism for mistaking money, which at this time was in the form of gold, for wealth, this is a theoretical aspect of their position not a political one, Mercantilism same as Capitalism is still progressive as compared to Feudalism. Hudson defends Mercantilism for the same reason he defends industrial capital over financial capital, which is actually the same reason Marx thinks Capitalism is progressive compared to Feudalism, that it builds the productive capacity of humanity which by objective measure is the material foundation for communism, where finance capital is a parasite that builds nothing, but Hudson isn't saying everyone should go back, that we should return to a better time, but that developing nations should adopt political policies similar to Mercantilism to develop their economies in the face of Imperialism. Marx would also say the same.
>>2523126>Same here, they seemingly "disagree" for completely opposite reasons, ironically relating to Agent Smiths favorite topic. Marx critiqued Mercantilism for mistaking money, which at this time was in the form of gold, for wealth, this is a theoretical aspect of their position not a political one, Mercantilism same as Capitalism is still progressive as compared to Feudalism. Hudson defends Mercantilism for the same reason he defends industrial capital over financial capital, which is actually the same reason Marx thinks Capitalism is progressive compared to Feudalism, that it builds the productive capacity of humanity which by objective measure is the material foundation for communism, where finance capital is a parasite that builds nothing, but Hudson isn't saying everyone should go back, that we should return to a better time, but that developing nations should adopt political policies similar to Mercantilism to develop their economies in the face of Imperialism. Marx would also say the same.fair and good analysis
>>2523096<The wage laborer everywhere follows in the footsteps of the manufacturer; he is like the "gloomy care" of Horace, that sits behind the rider, and that he cannot shake off wherever he go. You cannot escape fate; in other words, you cannot escape the necessary consequences of your own actions. A system of production based upon the exploitation of wage labor, in which wealth increases in proportion to the number of laborers employed and exploited, such a system is bound to increase the class of wage laborers, that is to say, the class which is fated one day to destroy the system itself. In the meantime, there is no help for it: you must go on developing the capitalist system, you must accelerate the production, accumulation, and centralization of capitalist wealth, and, along with it, the production of a revolutionary class of laborers. Whether you try the Protectionist or the Free Trade will make no difference in the end, and hardly any in the length of the respite left to you until the day when that end will come. For long before that day will protection have become an unbearable shackle to any country aspiring, with a chance of success, to hold its own in the world market.>On the Question of Free Trade>Preface by Frederick Engels for the 1888 English edition pamphlet >>2523160this is chile economic data btw
>>2523160he's talking about the bourgeoisie in the most advanced countries oscillating between free trade and protectionism to give themselves more leverage in the class struggle, not about whether free trade or protectionism benefits the (interclass)
nation itself in the course of its development. Obviously peripheral countries just become resource extraction hubs when the imperialists impose free trade on them but don't allow them to develop sovereign industry.
>>2523185>Obviously peripheral countries just become resource extraction hubs when the imperialists impose free trade on them but don't allow them to develop sovereign industry.He also speaks about the rise of revolutionary wage labors who are destined to destroy the system itself. And my thinking was more so that the lack of industrial development would impede such development.
Well that was until I thought about it more after posting that comment and realized the system of wage labors would develop nonetheless. A form would still develop even with impeded industrial development
>>2522702>There's a lot of variables at play.if you think marxism will change the world, then you put faith in ideas as the prime mover of politics. lenin himself also saw intellectuals as totally necessary for revolution, since its intellectuals who invented socialism.
>>2522709yes, and paul deviated from Christ. we still need to be hermeneutic, however. and for bible readers, paul may be even more relevant than Christ in some instances.
>>2522755lets put it this way. if you broke a phone that belonged to someone else, you would be legally viable. if you broke your own phone, there is no further legality. so then, to purchase a commodity is to contract the formal terms of ownership. to exchange a phone for money transfers ownership from seller to buyer - this is proven by our existing legal institutions. so then, you own your phone.
>>2522700>not exactly, it is entirely possible for a society to have poverty without theft<Like a huntger gatherer society for exampleas jevons and menger show, there is no real poverty in these societies since the margin of desire is inherently limited by the limitations imposed on the division of labour. this is also the dream of communism; that capitalism offers too much, and people should be happier with less - hence, production no longer serving luxury or high marginal utility, but only necessity.
>The point isn't that they "stole" it, they may have "rightfully inherited it" the point is that there is massive inequalityso profit isnt theft? profit is actually legitimate and taxing this away is theft? make up your mind already. 🙄
<I demand the normal working-day because I, like every other seller, demand the value of my commodityhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm >>2523286>if you think marxism will change the world, then you put faith in ideas as the prime mover of politicsI don't think your consequent is implied by your antecedent
>>2523286>lets put it this way. if you broke a phone that belonged to someone else, you would be legally viable. if you broke your own phone, there is no further legality. so then, to purchase a commodity is to contract the formal terms of ownership. to exchange a phone for money transfers ownership from seller to buyer - this is proven by our existing legal institutions. so then, you own your phone.You're still wrong. I've already repeated to you that I use electronic devices for communication that are already used by others close to me. All the electronic devices I use were not purchased by me, since I don't care about new devices if the old device can already perform its function. So what you're saying makes no sense for me to own this property if it's not linked to use.
>>2523286>this is also the dream of communism; that capitalism offers too much, and people should be happier with less again, the opposite
>>2523583i cant talk to you.
its like trying to teach a monkey to tie shoelaces.
>>2523840communism is about production for necessity, not luxury. this seems to be an uncontroversial opinion.
>>2523883is profit theft? yes or no?
>>2523886paulianity existed before christianity, so it shouldnt be too surprising.
>>2526045why are you being so defensive? communism is about orienting production around social necessity and not the excesses of a market economy. according to a jevonian and austrian theory of wealth therefore, communism facilitates general satiety through the restriction of the division of labour, which is one of marx's stated goals.
>>2526279>The division of labour is the economic expression of the social character of labour within the estrangement. Or, since labour is only an expression of human activity within alienation, of the manifestation of life as the alienation of life, the division of labour, too, is therefore nothing else but the estranged, alienated positing of human activity as a real activity of the species or as activity of man as a species-being.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/needs.htm<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!https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm >>2526957Nothing about restricting production to basic necessity in there.
>>2526999division of labour = markets = diverse commodities
diverse commodities entail what menger sees as a hierarchy of needs (desires) which becomes economised (according to what smith and keynes would call "effective demand"). the less money you have the more you economise for basic necessity and the more you have, the less economistic you become, etc.
similarly, a diversity of goods allows for a diversity of needs, which are then assorted according to marginal utility. this is why a good of common need is always cheaper than that of an uncommon character; basically, because of the rate of production of each. so then, as menger and jevons assess, in a primitive state, labour is not yet divided, and so the marginal utility of goods attains its absolute equilibrium at the rate of consumption. there is no scarcity or poverty in a primitive society; with economy however, there is the trading of goods as they develop exchange-value from the expense of their utility (smith, marx, menger) and so the diversity of production intersects in trade for goods of an opposite kind. so then, we economise at the threshold of a choice between available goods.
if there is no division of labour therefore, there can be no hierarchy of goods (and prices) since there would be no money. this is also the point; if you have no money, you cant save for goods and so you cannot transact at a rate of suitable time-preference. if i am paid £100 per week (net) and save, i can afford something worth £1,000 in 10 weeks. if there is no means of saving (propinquity) then it is logically necessary that everyone must get the same goods. the issue is that there will always be a division of labour and accordingly, the production of unequal utility, from the natural talents of labour to the contents of commodity.
beyond social necessity there is the natural excess of talent, which is denied by forbidding markets for no other reason than a superstition of "alienation". but even after being proven wrong you still protest that communism is not about forcing equality onto everybody. so then, explain how diversities in talents are able to be expressed without markets.
>>2527076Pure schizo babble. Amazing.
>befuddled by someone simply explaining their own beliefs
And this is what Smith Anon actually believes:
<Big companies only exist because of big government intervention in the free market. This is why big animals only exist because of government intervention and aliens and shit. Only real natural life is bacteria, everything else is artificial. Also people only develop diverse interest because of money. Otherwise they would be indistinguishable and all people would be the same, which is the goal of Marx (he appeared to me in a dream). It is a well-known fact that before the invention of money, only clones of just one organism existed.
>>2527137you seem obsessed 🤭
but at least youve stopped denying my diagnosis of your poisonous worldview. time for you to log off.
>>2527134>whats worst is not simply this destruction of wealth but also the silencing of opposition and enslavement of dissidents.holy shit you are a fucking anti communist
>>2527076see you have it backwards still, precommunism humanity is limited by biological necessity, and in communism the productive forces are the material foundation for social necessity, so its not a restriction but an overcoming of previous limits. markets are only necessary for distribution when resources are scarce and communism is premised on post scarcity by unleashing productive capacity from irrational social limits imposed by private ownership.
so you are right about social necessity but wrong about "restriction" of labor or otherwise. sufficient productive forces allows for the facilitation of labor not its restriction, and "social necessity" is not the same as what you said the first time which is "necessity", ie people having to work because they have to eat. the abundance produced by unleashing productive forces eliminates the need to work for necessity which allows for work according to desire, which produces luxury.
>>2527134its interesting that your critiques are always boil down to babies first anti-communism 101 mud pies type argument that were debunked over a century ago, in this case being the classic "communism makes everyone equally poor" which is obviously incorrect
>then it is logically necessary that everyone must get the same goodsof course but its not the case that every
only gets the same goods, its that the same goods are a baseline, it doesn't say people cant receive more than that
>>2525787>is profit theft? yes or no?you want me to say yes or no so you can then deploy a bunch of pre planned gotchas. the introduction of nuance and the rejection of your false binary is what you hate the most.
>>2525787>i cant talk to you.>its like trying to teach a monkey to tie shoelaces.I only prove your narrative of private property to be a lie because the property I use can only exist for me as a collective owner with other people, with me following our needs together, and not individually atomized, as you pretend private property is something natural to justify capitalism instead of it being a social construct that keeps other people subjugated, necessitating a hypocritical state that only exists to maintain the oppression of the exploiting class against the exploited classes due to class irreconcilability.
>>2525784False. Workers consume by participating in the economy, while capitalists' money eventually goes to unproductive financial speculation. The communist position is to cut indirect taxes such as consumption and sales and increase income taxes proportionally to the extreme so that all capitalists go bankrupt and have their properties confiscated, nationalized, occupied, collectivized, and socialized. The state is the instrument of one class to oppress another, and there should be no illusion about this truth. This will be the function it will be used for until the bourgeois state collapses and the proletarian state can initiate revolutionary terror to extinguish the capitalist class, abolish private property and social classes.
Let's look at Marx and Engels' political programs to prove my point:
<Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
<1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.<2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
<Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:
<(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
<(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.
<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
<14. Limitation of inheritance.
<15. Introduction of strongly progressive taxes and abolition of taxes on consumption.
<Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels March, 1848, Demands of the Communist Party in Germanyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm
<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 Ouvrierhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm>>2526279>wrong againYou're the one who's wrong. Let's look at the full quote from where Marx was speaking on the subject:
<Private Property and Communism
<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]
<The social power, i.e., the multiplied productive force, which arises through the co-operation of different individuals as it is determined by the division of labour, appears to these individuals, since their co-operation is not voluntary but has come about naturally, not as their own united power, but as an alien force existing outside them, of the origin and goal of which they are ignorant, which they thus cannot control, which on the contrary passes through a peculiar series of phases and stages independent of the will and the action of man, nay even being the prime governor of these.
<How otherwise could, for instance, property have had a history at all, have taken on different forms, and landed property, for example, according to the different premises given, have proceeded in France from parcellation to centralisation in the hands of a few, in England from centralisation in the hands of a few to parcellation, as is actually the case today? Or how does it happen that trade, which after all is nothing more than the exchange of products of various individuals and countries, rules the whole world through the relation of supply and demand – a relation which, as an English economist says, hovers over the earth like the fate of the ancients, and with invisible hand allots fortune and misfortune to men, sets up empires and overthrows empires, causes nations to rise and to disappear – while with the abolition of the basis of private property, with the communistic regulation of production (and, implicit in this, the destruction of the alien relation between men and what they themselves produce), the power of the relation of supply and demand is dissolved into nothing, and men get exchange, production, the mode of their mutual relation, under their own control again?
<History as a Continuous Process
<In history up to the present it is certainly an empirical fact that separate individuals have, with the broadening of their activity into world-historical activity, become more and more enslaved under a power alien to them (a pressure which they have conceived of as a dirty trick on the part of the so-called universal spirit, etc.), a power which has become more and more enormous and, in the last instance, turns out to be the world market. But it is just as empirically established that, by the overthrow of the existing state of society by the communist revolution (of which more below) and the abolition of private property which is identical with it, this power, which so baffles the German theoreticians, will be dissolved; and that then the liberation of each single individual will be accomplished in the measure in which history becomes transformed into world history. From the above it is clear that the real intellectual wealth of the individual depends entirely on the wealth of his real connections. Only then will the separate individuals be liberated from the various national and local barriers, be brought into practical connection with the material and intellectual production of the whole world and be put in a position to acquire the capacity to enjoy this all-sided production of the whole earth (the creations of man). All-round dependence, this natural form of the world-historical co-operation of individuals, will be transformed by this communist revolution into the control and conscious mastery of these powers, which, born of the action of men on one another, have till now overawed and governed men as powers completely alien to them. Now this view can be expressed again in speculative-idealistic, i.e. fantastic, terms as “self-generation of the species” (“society as the subject”), and thereby the consecutive series of interrelated individuals connected with each other can be conceived as a single individual, which accomplishes the mystery of generating itself. It is clear here that individuals certainly make one another, physically and mentally, but do not make themselves.
<[5. Development of the Productive Forces as a Material Premise of Communism]
<This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers – the utterly precarious position of labour – power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life – presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a “world-historical” existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.
<Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
<Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1845, Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook, A. Idealism and Materialismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a4 >>2527951>You're the one who's wrong. Let's look at the full quote from where Marx was speaking on the subject:You are conflating two meanings of division of labor. "Restriction" makes it sound like a prohibition. Hes pretty clearly talking about the regimentation of people into specific roles, which at his time was usually for life.
<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.
<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.up till now
<The social power, i.e., the multiplied productive force, which arises through the co-operation of different individuals as it is determined by the division of labour, appears to these individuals, since their co-operation is not voluntary but has come about naturally, not as their own united power, but as an alien force existing outside them, of the origin and goal of which they are ignorant, which they thus cannot control, which on the contrary passes through a peculiar series of phases and stages independent of the will and the action of man, nay even being the prime governor of these.private property makes people into a particular type of laborer, but division of labor also increases productive capacity
<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.division of labor in the second sense, that different jobs exist and focusing on one part of a productive process at a time increases efficiency still exist. so is this destruction of the division of labor a restriction on different roles existing? or is the the abolishment of being restricted to one role exclusively?
and what is the material premise for such a restriction on occupation to be overcome?
as marx says: Development of the Productive Forces
or are you saying that being locked into a particular occupation for life is necessary for the "multiplied productive force"? because that is not what marx is saying.
>>2527541>that happens under capitalismhappens under capitalism and communism, which are simply extensions of one another (i.e. monopoly over the means of production by capture of the state)
>>2527542>you want me to say yes or no so you can then deploy a bunch of pre planned gotchas.or maybe i want you to actually have your own opinions and ideas, which you clearly dont. if you cant say "yes" then you dont think profit is theft, so please never complain about the exploitation of labour ever again.
>>2527531>markets are only necessary for distribution when resources are scarce and communism is premised on post scarcity by unleashing productive capacity from irrational social limits imposed by private ownership. youre only half-right. remember what menger and jevons say; there is no scarcity in a primitive or communist society, but why? because the realm of production is fixed in its output, and because of this centralisation, there is the abundance of necessary materials. scarcity begins at the threshold where production is diversified in trade, and thus of a division of labour between goods. abundance means the sufficient production of particular materials (necessary goods), not all goods in general (since this would only be a complete waste and so would invert productivity, i.e. declining total product: TP). it would be wasteful to just make things if no one wanted them since they would be valueless. you are obviously avoiding the elephant in the room: if production is centrally planned, then there can be no waste, but the limitation of production to necessity. you would have abundance yet, but precisely because of a lack of diversity in goods (wrought from markets). but you are free to demonstrate a theoretical model of how you think a communist "economy" would work.
>the abundance produced by unleashing productive forces eliminates the need to work for necessity which allows for work according to desire, which produces luxury. you do realise none of this makes sense in a world where the government controls the means of production, right?
>"communism makes everyone equally poor" which is obviously incorrecthow is it obviously incorrect when its an historical and economic fact? what is the counter-example? where has their been communist luxury outside of the realms of party power, which steals from the people?
>its not the case that every only gets the same goodswho determines who gets different types of goods? in a market, private producers and consumers decide. in communism, how does the government delegate? almost as if the government should be used for some things and not for others; a public and private sector. 🤔
>>2527951>The communist position is to cut indirect taxes such as consumption and sales and increase income taxes proportionally to the extreme so that all capitalists go bankrupt and have their properties confiscatedas i say, i cant talk to you. income tax targets income (wage labour), while profits are targeted by things like capital gains and corporate tax. youre a monkey trying to put a square peg into a round hole. 😒🙄
>>2528048>so is this destruction of the division of labor a restriction on different roles existing? or is the the abolishment of being restricted to one role exclusively?marx leaves us in confusion because he uses the facile examples of fishing and poetry. these are not productive "roles", these are hobbies. and the idea of having multiple jobs is already fulfilled by capitalist oppression; hardly a sociological miracle. but if you are interpreting scripture, what does all this mean in practical reality?
>>2528029>totalitarianisminstead of reading random anons, read ᴉuᴉlossnW (1932):
<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 >>2528096>instead of reading random anons,you literally are a random anon and the conversation started with your assertions
>read ᴉuᴉlossnW (1932):you were alleging marx thinks the same thing and it's clear he doesn't
>>2528093>capitalism and communism, which are simply extensions of one another (i.e. monopoly over the means of production by capture of the state)so are you a "center left liberal" (capitalist) like you were saying earlier ITT or are you some kind of anarchist that fantasizes about returning to 18th century yeomanry minus the slavery and colonialism part?
>>2528356marx wants everything in the state since if everything is in the state, nothing can be oppressed outside of its representation (as a class dictatorship):
<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.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmthe only real contradiction in this occurs between the people and the party, where a new class of bureaucrats struggles against the proletariat. i have said before that i like stalin's purge however, since it mostly targeted the party rather than the public.
>>2528358i consider myself a centre-left liberal, yes
but this does not have to be synonymous with capitalism, which as marx says, is the private power of capitalists made into the social power of the state. a state is only sovereign where it is sufficiently democratic, and as i have also said, capitalism cannot offer democracy, since it does not create a universal citizenry (demos), but only slaves (wage-slaves). all that slaves are capable of politically are tyrannies.
>>2528093>how is it obviously incorrect when its an historical and economic fact? what is the counter-example? where has their been communist luxury outside of the realms of party power, which steals from the people?There isn't one, because none have been allowed to develop sufficient productive forces without external coercion meaning they have to allocate a significant section of labor to self defense from counter-revolution and imperialism. But you aren't actually addressing the idea that sufficient productive forces would enable what Marx describes, you are denying that its possible to reach such a level of sufficiency, without evidence. We can already see evidence of it working in China, yes first everyone is equally poor, and then as productive forces increase everyones wealth increases relative to the productive capacity. Whereas in capitalism as productive forces increase people become relatively less wealthy as production concentrates into fewer private hands and the profit rate falls.
>>2528048In the text you can see the abolition of the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor.
>>2528096>as i say, i cant talk to you. income tax targets income (wage labour), while profits are targeted by things like capital gains and corporate tax. youre a monkey trying to put a square peg into a round hole. 😒🙄Any attempt to direct the bourgeois state toward class conciliation and see it as a neutral entity must be opposed by communists without exception. The bourgeois state must be pushed to the limit of class struggle to collapse so that the dictatorship of the proletariat can begin. To achieve this, the accumulation of capital or the means to accumulate capital must be prevented, so that the exploiting classes begin to hate workers even more, and these workers see them as irreconcilable enemies. State-owned companies must be used to flood the market with cheap products to purposefully bankrupt private companies and private properties to facilitate expropriation. All who deny this truth must be punished as counterrevolutionary class traitors, in order to accelerate expropriations and consolidate the supremacy of the proletariat. All this must be done through the process of wage equalization, forcing workers to unite and organize together, where all workers will either win or lose together, to filter out opportunists who conspire with the bourgeoisie.
Let's look at quotes demonstrating my point:
<7. Direct and indirect taxation<(a) No modification of the form of taxation can produce any important change in the relations of labour and capital.
<(b) Nevertheless, having to choose between two systems of taxation, we recommend the total abolition of indirect taxes, and the general substitution of direct taxes. [In Marx’s rough manuscript, French and German texts are: “because direct taxes are cheaper to collect and do not interfere with production”.]
<Because indirect taxes enhance the prices of commodities, the tradesmen adding to those prices not only the amount of the indirect taxes, but the interest and profit upon the capital advanced in their payment
<Because indirect taxes conceal from an individual what he is paying to the state, whereas a direct tax is undisguised, unsophisticated, and not to be misunderstood by the meanest capacity. Direct taxation prompts therefore every individual to control the governing powers while indirect taxation destroys all tendency to self-government.
<The International Workingmen’s Association, 1866, Instructions for the Delegates of the Provisional General Council, The Different Questionshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1866/instructions.htm
<10. Here I should say: “Progressive… tax to cover all expenditure of the state, district and community, insofar as taxes are required for it. Abolition of all indirect state and local taxes, duties, etc.” The rest is a redundant commentary or motivation that tends to weaken the effect.
<Works of Frederick Engels, 1891, A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/06/29.htmI'll put the quoted part that Engels was correcting:
<9. Graduated income and property tax for defraying all public expenditures, to the extent that they are to be paid for by taxation. Inheritance tax, graduated according to the size of the inheritance and the degree of kinship. Abolition of all indirect taxes, customs, and other economic measures that sacrifice the interests of the community to those of a privileged few.
<Social Democracy, 1891, The Erfurt Programhttps://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm >>2528755>There isn't oneokay, so youre just lying that communist societies abound in luxury.
>because none have been allowed to develop sufficient productive forces without external coercion right, so everything bad that ever happened in communist countries is the fault of capitalists. got it.
>But you aren't actually addressing the idea that sufficient productive forces would enable what Marx describeswhat exactly does "marx" describe? marx describes rationing resources with coupons and then describes a future welfare state which taxes the productive to serve the marginally unproductive, to manufacfure a contrived equality. his imagination is entirely limited, while it is unbounded by you to by science fiction, which is nowhere present in marx. so stop projecting your own ideas onto texts which youre clearly unfamiliar with.
>We can already see evidence of it working in Chinachina? does marx describe money, markets and commodities existing in a communist society?
>Whereas in capitalism as productive forces increase people become relatively less wealthy as production concentrates into fewer private hands and the profit rate falls.profits fall in direct relation to rising wages, so what is this drivel youre spouting?
>>2528989>The bourgeois state must be pushed to the limit of class struggleabolishing income tax can only favour workers.
>>2529147in the US, cenk uygur established the "justice democrats" with kyle kulinski to "get money out of politics". capitalism as class dictatorship directly depends upon the oligarchic plutocracy of privatising the state, so setting limits to private fundraising seems like a good start. that is a basic example of opposing corruption. in the communist manifesto, marx says that he supported the chartist movement, which was a movement beginning with the "reform act (1832)" which widened political representation in democracy, yet the chartists sought to expand suffrage to even more citizens - so marx supported democratic reformists back in 1848, with engels also seeing how marx imagined england was capable of a purely peaceful and legal revolution, (since parliament is sovereign):
<Surely, at such a moment, the voice ought to be heard of a man [marx] whose whole theory is the result of a lifelong study of the economic history and condition of England, and whom that study led to the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means. He certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a “pro-slavery rebellion,” to this peaceful and legal revolution.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p6.htmlawfare is part of class struggle, as i show here:
>>2528336>>2528411i would take communists more seriously if they wrote out constitutions of their ideal republic rather than bandying about with half-baked ideas and criticism. this is also the frustration of when i ask people to define terms and clauses of property. if this is undefined, then you surrender coherence to lawyers.
you know I have to respect adam smith anon. hes not giving up
>>2529339Thank you Paul Dickblast
High autism score thread
>>2529391> if this is undefined, then you surrender coherence to lawyers.laws and their interpretation are a completely different sphere of activity than their enforcement. in class society, the law is enforced asymmetrically. A rich man can always bribe a cop and a poor man cannot. A rich man can always commit crimes in the confines of his private property, away from prying eyes, while a homeless man's life, crimes and all, are without any privacy whatsoever. if I am a rich man and I do illegal drugs with a sex worker in my mansion, the cops will not see it. If I am a homeless person and I perform sex work in an alleyway in exchange for illegal drugs, my crime is very likely to be witnessed and prosecuted, if not immediately by a person, then asynchronously by a security camera which will be reviewed at a later date and forwarded to law enforcement.
All this to say that the coherence of the law matters little when enforcement is selective, and class society invariably has selective law enforcement. It is not that the ruling class is
entirely above the law either. It is more subtle than that. Rich people go to prison, but their prisons are more humane. White collar crimes are sometimes prosecuted, but they the sentences are lighter.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/homeless-man-vs-corporate-thief/ >>2529391>i would take communists more seriously if they wrote out constitutions of their ideal republic rather than bandying about with half-baked ideas and criticism.Did not the USSR have a constitution? Does not the PRC have a constitution?
What use is drafting a constitution before you have won a revolutioanry civil war? Before you can establish a new order there is a period of lawlessness and warfare. Even the USA had to go through a civil war before amending its already existing constitution against slavery.
>>2529892aristotle in his book "problems" also discusses the inequity of law, where in his society, theft would lead to execution while murder would lead to a fine. this is an issue of legislation, which can be reformed. the corruption of justice in practice however, is due to a corruption of the judiciary. this has its alarming precedent in every country and even in sports, where referees can be paid off to give certain results, or otherwise be ideologically motivated. an issue however is that the arbitration of justice is an interpretative process, which i see upheld by the complexity of existing laws. the rich dont dodge taxes because they are "allowed", but because they have good lawyers. so i see legislation and the judiciary as co-defined. if we fixed the law, the law would hardly have to be interpreted. its my fantasy to have a law so simple that any man could be his own lawyer. beyond these considerations, what is left? fix the law; fix the state.
>>2529897>What use is drafting a constitution before you have won a revolutioanry civil war?so that you are able to sufficiently communicate your politics to people outside of nonsense abstractions. when i ask "is profit theft?" for example, i expect a legal claim, not cowardly filibustering. more concretely, i could expect "policies" (i know thats a bad word around here) to understand another's perspective. dont forget that the communist manifesto itself puts forward policies, to either be agreed or disagreed to.
>>2529907lol no
>the rich dont dodge taxes because they are "allowed", but because they have good lawyers.The rich dodge taxes because 95% of arrests are dreived from traffic stops and Regan made the IRS go after individuals from a lottery instead of with intent.
I feel like I would have to write an entire jurisprudential treatise to correct such a fundamental misunderstanding of the complexity of law. Broad rules require interpretation dependent upon factual analysis, which is what leads to exceptions of exceptions. You can see this in action when you read errata rules for magic the gathering. Go read the penal code of wherever you live and it will seem simple. "No vehicles in the park". What's a vehicle. An immobile tank? A bike? A Car? A motorized scooter? A skateboard? What is the park? Is it the grass? The sidewalks? What is the intent behind the rule? Is it protecting the grass and trees or is it to limit the liability of the city? Are the exceptions for events? For each "simple" rule you create, there is endless complexity because the human condition and the sets of facts applied to that rule are endless as well. There are an infinite number of game states and boards. All these cases are interpreted by judges resulting in opinions to guide others in the right direction dependent on the facts. That is then what lawyers argue about (sometimes). That the CURRENT dispute, is MORE or LESS like THIS opinion or THAT opinion.
Also most of the corruption isn't flat out bribery. It's the comfort of government benefits and and being a part of the upper strata of the profession. Most judges rule the way they do because they don't want to be kicked out of office or get in the news. The dialectical analysis is more nuanced and complex.
>>2529907>so that you are able to sufficiently communicate your politics to people outside of nonsense abstractions. for most people, politics is a nonsense abstraction. when peasants and workers gather to listen to some professional revolutionary speak, it isn't to hear legalspeak, it's to hear why the society they want to build is a better than the current one.
>>2529390>profits fall in direct relation to rising wagesand also when the organic composition of capital increases. i thought you said you read marx
>>2529053You’re just playing word games here. Marx is clearly talking about the subordination of individuals to fixed roles under the division of labor. He also explains that this condition will be abolished at the highest stage of communism.
<In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes… without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.This is not about optimizing workflows, but rather the abolition of the system that confines a person to a fixed role. The division of labor Marx criticizes is not merely the existence of different tasks, but also the compulsion and alienation that comes from being locked into one. In this case, the individual becomes a mere function of capital and of production needs.
You acknowledge when you say:
<each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape.This quotation identifies the core of alienation that Marx is critiquing. This is not a subtle distinction, Marx calls it “one of the chief factors in historical development”, and he identifies its abolition as a consequence of communism.
Also, your question about the “material premises” has already been answered by Marx himself in the quote:
<This "alienation"… can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises… (1) it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,”… (2) a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development.So yes, Marx ties the abolition of fixed occupational roles to the development of the productive forces, the material abundance that makes freedom from necessity possible. That’s the basis for a society where people aren’t defined by their job, it’s literally the trajectory of historical development Marx outlines in The German Ideology.
>>2529391>abolishing income tax can only favour workers.Wrong, everything should be used as a tool for the abolition of private property and the supremacy of the proletariat, so that the exploiting classes can be abolished. If you read Lenin's text called "Capitalism and Taxation" then you can see him proving my point too:
<If the capitalists were to pay the same percentage in taxes as the workers, the tax imposed would be 385,000,000 and not 19,000,000 dollars.
<Does a progressive income tax of the sort planned in America change much? Very little. From the capitalists 19,000,000 dollars indirect taxes plus 70,000,000 dollars income tax would be obtained, that is, altogether 89,000,000 dollars or only one and a half percent of income!
<Let us divide the capitalists into middle (income 4,000 to 10,000 dollars, i.e., 8,000-20,000 rubles) and wealthy (with an income over 20,000 rubles). We get the following: middle capitalists—304,000 families with a total income of 1,813,000,000 dollars, and wealthy capitalists—121,000 families with a total income of 3,600,000,000 dollars.
<If the middle capitalists paid as much as the workers pay, i.e., 7 per cent of income, the revenue would be about 130,000,000 dollars. Fifteen per cent from the income of wealthy capitalists would produce 540,000,000 dollars. The total would more than cover all indirect taxes. After the deduction of this tax the middle capitalists would still have an income of 11,000 rubles each and the wealthy an income of 50,000 rubles each.
<We see that the demand put forward by the Social-Democrats—the complete abolition of all indirect taxes and their replacement by a real progressive income tax and not one that merely plays at it—is fully realisable. Such a measure would, without affecting the foundations of capitalism, give tremendous immediate relief to nine-tenths of the population; and, secondly, it would serve as a gigantic impetus to the development of the productive forces of society by expanding the home market and liberating the state from the nonsensical hindrances to economic life that have been introduced for the purpose of levying indirect taxes.
<The capitalists’ advocates usually point to the difficulty of assessing big incomes. Actually, with banks, savings societies, etc., at their present level of development, this is a purely imaginary difficulty. The one difficulty is the class-avarice of the capitalists and the existence of undemocratic institutions in the political structure of bourgeois states.
<V. I. Lenin, 1913, Capitalism and Taxationhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/07b.htmYour other point about supporting bourgeois politicians in a bourgeois democracy taking away the independence of the working class against the bourgeoisie for a lesser evil is wrong.
Here is an example with Engels talking about the participation of communists in a bourgeois election in the United States with a distinct party independent of the bourgeoisie for you to understand instead of acting like a liberal complicit in the domination of financial capitalism over the world:
<The first great step of importance for every country newly entering into the movement is always the organisation of the workers as an independent political party, no matter how, so long as it is a distinct workers' party. And this step has been taken, far more rapidly than we had a right to hope, and that is the main thing. That the first programme of this party is still confused and highly deficient, that it has set up the banner of Henry George, these are inevitable evils but also only transitory ones. The masses must have time and opportunity to develop and they can only have the opportunity when they have their own movement–no matter in what form so long as it is only their own movement–in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves.
<Frederick Engels, “Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1886”, Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge In Hoboken.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_11_29.htmTwo more quotes with Marx and Engels proving my point about participation in elections:
<Complete abstention from political action is impossible. The abstentionist press participates in politics every day. It is only a question of how one does it, and of what politics one engages in. For the rest, to us abstention is impossible. The working-class party functions as a political party in most countries by now, and it is not for us to ruin it by preaching abstention. Living experience, the political oppression of the existing governments compels the workers to occupy themselves with politics whether they like it or not, be it for political or for social goals. To preach abstention to them is to throw them into the embrace of bourgeois politics. The morning after the Paris Commune, which has made proletarian political action an order of the day, abstention is entirely out of the question.
<We want the abolition of classes. What is the means of achieving it? The only means is political domination of the proletariat. For all this, now that it is acknowledged by one and all, we are told not to meddle with politics. The abstentionists say they are revolutionaries, even revolutionaries par excellence. Yet revolution is a supreme political act and those who want revolution must also want the means of achieving it, that is, political action, which prepares the ground for revolution and provides the workers with the revolutionary training without which they are sure to become the dupes of the Favres and Pyats the morning after the battle. However, our politics must be working-class politics. The workers' party must never be the tagtail of any bourgeois party; it must be independent and have its goal and its own policy.
<The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association, and the freedom of the press — those are our weapons. Are we to sit back and abstain while somebody tries to rob us of them? It is said that a political act on our part implies that we accept the exiting state of affairs. On the contrary, so long as this state of affairs offers us the means of protesting against it, our use of these means does not signify that we recognise the prevailing order.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "Apropos Of Working-Class Political Action".https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/21.htm
<Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels , "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League"https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm >>2530726>Marx is clearly talking about the subordination of individuals to fixed roles I agree. I dont agree with this:
>>2526246>communism facilitates general satiety through the restriction of the division of labour>>2525787>communism is about production for necessity, not luxury.>>2523286>this is also the dream of communism; that capitalism offers too much, and people should be happier with less >>2521187>please don't enter the argument other people are having with this dude to say something wrong so he can feel smug.if only
>>2521205>I insist on ending this discussion because it is frustrating to watch.great work!
>>2529398should we flag up so you can recognize that we have all been here the whole time
Adam Smith Anon, were you ever a Marxist, were you always a liberal? How did your political trajectory develop? If you don't mind me asking.
>>2530762young Stalin was writing before there was a real example of Communists taking total power on a national level. The USSR was the first historical instance of that happening. But under what conditions did they exist?
1. they were born in massive poverty from the corpse of a semi-feudal tsarist autocratic empire with a patchwork of different sovereign nations within it
2. they were born into a world war
3. they immediately set to work ending that war on unfavorable terms
4. they were immediately plunged into a civil war
5. this civil war saw them invaded by 14 capitalist countries who sought to kill socialism in the cradle
6. they had to spend the entire interwar period rapidly industrializing
7. they had to deal with a genocide against their people committed by the nazis
8. after sacrificing more lives to defeat fascism than any other country they had to reject the Marshall Plan to retain economic sovereignty and avoid getting economically couped through structural adjustment programs, all while the USA (who profited heavily from WW2) pumped money into their future enemies in NATO.
9. while they tried to heal from WW2 without economic assistance, the USA built up an iron curtain through NATO and then blamed them for said iron curtain.
10. by the time they got the Warsaw Pact together in 1955, the USA was already doing CIA coups not just against communists and socialists, but even against 3rd world nationalists who just wanted economic sovereignty and nationalization, like Mossadegh, Arbenz, and Sukarno
11. The USSR spent its remaining history investing way too much of its GDP in self defense due to the cold war and the arms race. They were way behind the USA who had not only a developmental head start, but also fared better in WW1 and WW2
12. the sino soviet split, followed by operation cyclone which baited them into afghanistan, was the death knell for their economic sovereignty.
13. even after the USSR collapsed the USA drove more nails into the coffin by funding yeltsin's presidential campaign, and materially supporting him as he shelled parliament to crush soviet holdouts
so when you look at the entire life and death of the USSR, it's remarkable that they did as well as they did, and the criticism of them being too bureaucratic and authoritarian rings hollow.
All revolutionary governments are obliged upon taking power to defend the power they took from the old regime, and all revolutionary governments upon taking power are attacked from the outside by allies of the old regime. It is only natural that revolutionary governments appear authoritarian and bureaucratic and even to be betraying their own principles upon taking power. Did not George Washington crush Shay's Rebellion? Did not Robespierre use the committee for public safety to decapitate 10,000? Liberal revolutions themselves were bureaucratic and authoritarian upon seizing power and needed to be to maintain their growth against feudal counter-revolution. The same appears to be the case for socialism in its cradle. Jefferson said the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, yet quivered in fear at the Haitians living up to that quote who hung their French slave masters. It would seem we have a double standard that Socialist and anti-imperialist regimes are held to which liberal bourgeois regimes are not held to.
But in any case the revolution occurs and most be defended at a certain level of revolution. Armchair generals with hindsight bias and little historical knowledge declare things like "Stalin shouldn't have stopped at Berlin" and so on, as if the Soviets would have survived longer by engaging in suicidal attacks on other nations.
>>2529926>umm, written laws have to be complicated ☝️🤓this just isnt true, especially when you factor in a variable like social trust (or social contract):
<"More law, less justice" [44 B.C.]https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Officiis/1B*.html>Also most of the corruption isn't flat out bribery.the corruption of the law begins in its complexity.
>>2530726>Wrong, everything should be used as a tool for the abolition of private property and the supremacy of the proletariatthese are opposite tendencies. the desire of the proletariat is to be in possession of their own property, and from thence, you are able to have a democracy.
>>2530728no one has explained how the production of luxuries in a communist society works yet.
>>2530754i would say that i am predisposed to liberalism. my first politics were a form of libertarianism when i was around 14. after that i got into hoppeanism since it seemed to give a focus on hard justice, which was one of my preoccupations. around 17, i hung around cliquey spaces like /acc and NRx twitter, but could never really adapt to it. after this i sort of fell out of politics and got into religion and philosophy. my interest in philosophy steered me into marxist spaces, where it was purely theoretical, not political. only later did i rest at being a centre-left liberal. my focus is still justice, including liberty. its not a very interesting story. the grandness of any political exposition i offer is only in elaborating what is actually present in our existing institutions, and so when you cite people already encoded into the western canon, there is this amazement that things didnt just begin at a year zero, like with how marx is treated, as inventing every concept he espoused, when he hardly invented anything himself, to his own admission. marx as an archivist of sorts was still a dazzling genius who is rightfully respected, but respect and worship are the same differences between reverance and idolatry. the disputes i mostly have with people here havent really been intellectual, but interpersonal. a lot of unpleasant, deceptive, hypocritical people are on this website, who think that killing the messenger kills the message. but think about it, what exactly is my original sin? why am i notorious? no one can say. the issue is with them. 🤷🏻♂️
>>2530919communists dont believe in the concept of justice or liberty so they're rather unpersuasive to my sensibilities. 🤒
Ok, bros, I'm new to political economy what's the essential /political economy/ readings and books?
>>2530916I am saying the application of law itself is complex based on the nature of disputes. I agree that needless complexity is oppressive. Enhancement statutes and self referential statutes and derrivative and/or clauses and a needlessly long list of other problems with the law are, in fact, problems. But to shrug off my entire post with a straw man 'no u' is absolute bullshit. I'm sorry I didn't give you a platform to blog like
>>2530754 did.
>>2531063>I am saying the application of law itself is complex based on the nature of disputesthere is only disputation where there is the possibility to add clauses to existing statutes by precedent. kids do this when they play games and end up adding rules to existing terms to make it fairer (to them). it has its practicality where it concerns defining what is just, but to me, legal justice is rather simple and its terms are formally mandated. i think especially so where it concerns committing a crime; youre either guilty or innocent. you create more criminals when you add room for interpretation by defining terms willy-nilly. again, if we stick to what ought to be considered criminal we can think of some things: murder, rape, theft, vandalism, violence and disorder (with all these simply operating under the principle of the unrightful violation of property). for these, there is not much wiggle-room in how we define them. and beyond this, what justice is there in imprisonment? further, if we simply executed murderers and rapists, even less people would be in prison, so its a win-win. adding to the major decriminalisation of society, its also necessary to deconstruct surveilance technologies by imposing natural limits on the police force (which for efficiency's sake, must be at least halved in size).
>I agree that needless complexity is oppressivegood.
>to shrug off my entire post with a straw man 'no u' is absolute bullshit.its not that deep.
but you seem upset, so i apologise.
>>2530938here's a basic reading list:
xenophon - the economist (362 B.C.)
xenophon - on revenues (355 B.C.)
aristotle - economics (350 B.C.)
aristotle - nicomachaen ethics, bk. 5, ch. 5 (350 B.C.)
aristotle - rhetoric, bk. 1, sct. 7 (340 B.C.)
aristotle - politics, bk. 1, 1256a-1258b (330 B.C.)
aristotle - politics, bk. 2, 1263a (330 B.C.)
aristotle - politics, bk. 4, 1295b-1296a (330 B.C.)
aristotle - politics, bk. 5, 1308b (330 B.C.)
thomas aquinas - summa theologica ii.ii.Q77 (1274)
atoine montchretien - treatise, book 1 (1615)
william petty - a treatise of taxes (1662)
john locke - second treatise on government, ch. 5 (1689)
adam smith - wealth of nations (1776)
david ricardo - principles of political economy (1817)
james mill - elements of political economy (1821)
friedrich list - national system of political economy (1841)
karl marx - value, price and profit (1865)
karl marx - capital, vol. 1 (1867)
william jevons - theory of political economy (1871)
carl menger - principles of economics (1871)
karl marx - capital, vol. 3 (1894)
J.M. keynes - general theory (1936)
david graeber - debt: the first 5,000 years (2011)
i absolutely love cranks like this.
georgists are another bunch:
https://cooperative-individualism.org/classicist autism is a real thing, like deism:
https://www.deism.com/>>2531119US prison population is my favorite gotcha to own the chuds with facts and logic when they call china a "police state"
>>2530916>i would say that i am predisposed to liberalism. my first politics were a form of libertarianism when i was around 14. after that i got into hoppeanism since it seemed to give a focus on hard justice, which was one of my preoccupations. around 17, i hung around cliquey spaces like /acc and NRx twitter, but could never really adapt to it. after this i sort of fell out of politics and got into religion and philosophy. my interest in philosophy steered me into marxist spaces, where it was purely theoretical, not political. only later did i rest at being a centre-left liberal. my focus is still justice, including liberty. its not a very interesting story. the grandness of any political exposition i offer is only in elaborating what is actually present in our existing institutions, and so when you cite people already encoded into the western canon, there is this amazement that things didnt just begin at a year zero, like with how marx is treated, as inventing every concept he espoused, when he hardly invented anything himself, to his own admission. marx as an archivist of sorts was still a dazzling genius who is rightfully respected, but respect and worship are the same differences between reverance and idolatry. the disputes i mostly have with people here havent really been intellectual, but interpersonal. a lot of unpleasant, deceptive, hypocritical people are on this website, who think that killing the messenger kills the message. but think about it, what exactly is my original sin? why am i notorious? no one can say. the issue is with them.Interesting. Thanks for answering. Do you come from a core or a peripheral country? From a bourgeois or working class family? I will stop if these questions are too much.
>>2530916>these are opposite tendencies. the desire of the proletariat is to be in possession of their own property, and from thence, you are able to have a democracy.Wrong again. The proletariat organizes itself as a class for its political supremacy as a collective against the capitalist class. Isolated workers are irrelevant, and workers who wish to be bourgeois and feel sympathy for the bourgeoisie will be punished for denying the supremacy of the proletariat. This supremacy is not the rule of all, but of the proletariat organized as a class in the dictatorship of the proletariat to democratize the entire economy through expropriations and the abolition of private property through the use of revolutionary terror, where all property will be organized collectively. To deny this is to be a class traitor. There is no class conciliation, and the state is an instrument of one class to oppress another. This means that all capitalists, landowners, and counterrevolutionary agents of the bourgeoisie will have all their rights curtailed until they surrender their private property and become common workers, reeducated to eliminate their antisocial tendencies.
Let's take the manifesto that proves my point:
<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, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
<These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
<Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
<1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.<2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.<3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.<4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.<5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.<6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.<7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.<8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.<9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.<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.
<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 Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmWhen I talk about democratizing the economy, I'm talking about collective planning as collective property rather than any individual's petty interests as private property. This means expropriation, collectivization, socialization, and occupation of all this private property.
>>2531940>any worker who wants to own the produce of their own labour is an enemy to communistsyes, i already told you this.
communists are against the working classes.
>>2531781i was born in the north west of england into a working class irish catholic family. my mother was a whore, so had 4 children out of wedlock to 3 different abusive men before the time she was 30. she married the third and had a fifth child later on. growing up, it was rather modest, but manageable. there were times i was embarrassed about having little money around my friends, but we were all in the same general socio-economic bracket, so it wasnt stratified in any way. i did generally well in school, but had already burned out by the time the final exams came around; i could have done better but i was fully indulged in teenage nihilism.
👀 here's an interesting speech from ronald reagan:
>President Ronald Reagan’s Speech on Project Economic Justice, August 3, 1987<Today the pivotal relationship between freedom and economic progress is becoming ever more apparent. The root cause of stagnation in the developing world, clearly, is not a lack of resources, but a lack of freedom […] economic and political freedom are inseparably linked […] I’ve long believed one of the mainsprings of our own liberty has been the widespread ownership of property among our people and the expectation that anyone’s child, even from the humblest of families, could grow up to own a business or corporation. Thomas Jefferson dreamed of a land of small farmers, of shop owners and merchants. Abraham Lincoln signed into law the “Homestead Act” that ensured that the great western prairies of America would be the realm of independent, property-owning citizens-a mightier guarantee of freedom is difficult to imagine. I know we have with us today employee-owners from La Perla Plantation in Guatemala. They have a stake in the place where they work and a stake in the freedom of their country. When Communist guerrillas came, these proud owners protected what belonged to them. They drove the Communists off their land and I know you join me in saluting their courage. In this century, the United States has evolved into a great industrial power. Even though they are now, by and large, employees, our working people still benefit from property ownership. Most of our citizens own the homes in which they reside. In the marketplace, they benefit from direct and indirect business ownership […] I can’t help but believe that in the future we will see in the United States and throughout the western world an increasing trend toward the next logical step, EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP. It is a path that befits a free people. Walter Reuther was one of the first major labor leaders to advocate that management and labor shift away from battling over wage and benefit levels to a cooperative effort aimed at sharing in the ownership of the new wealth being produced […] Reuther was killed in a tragic place accident in 1970, so he did not live to see passage of legislation sponsored by Senator Russell Long of Louisiana that provides incentives for Employee Stock Ownership Plans, or ESOP’s. In recent years, we have witnessed medium-sized and even some large corporations being purchased, in part or in whole, by their employees. Weirton Steel in West Virginia, Lowe’s Companies in North Carolina, The Milwaukee Journal, Lincoln Electric Company of Cleveland, Ohio, and many others are now manned by employees who are also owners […] The energy and vitality unleashed by this kind of People’s Capitalism-free and open markets, robust competition, and broad-based ownership of the means of production- can serve this nation well. It can also be a boon, if given a chance, to the people of the developing world. https://www.cesj.org/about-cesj-in-brief/history-accomplishments/pres-reagans-speech-on-project-economic-justice/ reagan appears to praise walter reuther, but who is he?
>Walter Philip Reuther was an American leader of organized labor and civil rights activist who built the United Automobile Workers (UAW) into one of the most progressive labor unions in American history. He considered labor movements not as narrow special interest groups but as instruments to advance social justice and human rights in democratic societies. He leveraged the UAW's resources and influence to advocate for workers' rights, civil rights, women's rights, universal health care, public education, affordable housing, environmental stewardship and nuclear nonproliferation around the world. He believed in Swedish-style social democracy and societal change through nonviolent civil disobedience.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reutherinteresting eh? a "people's capitalism" of cooperatives?
>>2532833>yes, i already told you this.>communists are against the working classes.You seem to me like a fool of the petty bourgeoisie who will already go bankrupt with capitalism, a worker without class consciousness who fantasizes about being petty bourgeois or a bourgeois who wants to speculate with private property, but you will be discarded by the bourgeoisie you love and punished when the workers occupy all the properties where they live for collective organization. There is no hope for the petty bourgeoisie to have any independence, because capitalist competition will already destroy it. Their only hope is to act with what they have in common with the supremacy of the proletarian class. This means socializing the economy so that housing exists as shelter and not as a commodity in the market. With the socialization of the economy, your country will produce machines and tools with state-owned companies in a sovereign manner for the population to use. The suppression of all private banks will be done so that a public bank exists with a statistical commission made exclusively by the working class to calculate their wages according to the price of food and consumption so that capitalists do not use inflation to transfer losses against workers. And socializing the rest of the economy such as health, education, food, childcare so that the cost is not transferred to other people, transportation, extractivism, etc. so that workers are not at the mercy of commodities in the market that are under the control of capitalists.
Now with your speech, which you created to make people feel sorry for you, to co-opt the masses into being lackeys of the bourgeoisie. Unlike you, I'm from the Third World, and I'm aware of the slave labor that coerces rural workers. I know about debt bondage and indentured servitude, while you're a coward who pretends it doesn't exist. You obscure the financialization of the global economy because you probably want to export your problems to poor countries so you can believe there's innocence in importing cheap goods instead of nationalizing your entire economy and consuming whatever is produced, having economic sovereignty. You come with the nonsense of peaceful disobedience. The only truth is that one class will oppress the other to maintain private property. With the emergence of the state due to the irreconcilability of social classes between owners and non-owners, there will be violence by workers against private property, with its expropriation being self-defense. Libertarians are the lackeys who worsen the abuse and exploitation of labor analogous to slavery, claiming it's voluntary, defending the capitalist parasites by deregulating the economy, or inventing that the landowners are creating jobs for the ruined masses of workers, but don't worry, I won't feel sorry for a lackey of parasites like you when the workers' popular militia expropriates you along with the parasitic owners of private property and punishes you as a counterrevolutionary.
>>2533262>class consciousnessits in the interest of the working class to possess their own property
>The only truth is that one class will oppress the other to maintain private property.yes, today its the capitalist monopolists over the workers. i want the workers to own their own property.
>the emergence of the state due to the irreconcilability of social classes between owners and non-ownersas i have explained, a society of ownership breeds democracy.
>>2533295>its in the interest of the working class to possess their own propertyWrong. Everything that is collectively produced must be collectively controlled. Private property is the root of abuse and control by parents against children, by men against women. Competition eventually leads to the bankruptcy of smaller, competing companies, and the petty bourgeoisie as losers. The most fertile lands and control of needs as private property eventually lead to coercion and blackmail by owners against the rest of society. The petty bourgeoisie who eventually failed against the competition of large-scale production will eventually be coerced into debt, and many peasants and other uninformed workers will be trapped in an endless cycle, trapped in the property of landowners who own farms and control consumer goods. This will keep these rural workers trapped because the transportation they use is privately owned. Workers do not want to own private property. They want access to their needs and collective control over where they work so that they are not simply producing goods to sell to some capitalist's market. Private property is the root of slavery and servitude, and this can only be resolved if all property is collective and organized collectively, belonging to no one. You are either a fool out of touch with reality or a malicious agent of the bourgeoisie, an apologist for private property. A democracy must have absolute social equality for the entire population, otherwise it is merely an instrument of private property owners who will accelerate the coercion of those who lose in the market competition to accumulate more capital. Where all natural resources will be concentrated for the profit of capitalists in the accumulation of capital, competition inevitably leads to the concentration and local monopolization of property, with eventual coercion of what you pretend to be "voluntary contracts" of the working masses. Violence is inevitable, and the capitalist state eventually emerges to defend its "voluntary contracts," or ignores it if the owner is acting illegally, with punishments that are always diminished for the ruling class. Punishment never arrives, always prolonging any legal action. This is if it is not pardoned or erased, and the person responsible for being punished disappears due to the diffusion of responsibility. The state's lack of "market friendliness" becomes an excuse to continue the abuse encouraged by shareholders and private property owners.
The democracy you speak of is only among slave owners and is irrelevant to me. All private property will be abolished in the revolution, and the workers and propertyless masses will use violence to punish parasitic apologists like you, no matter what contract you invent in your head that doesn't exist without the capitalist state.
>yes, today its the capitalist monopolists over the workers. i want the workers to own their own property.Wrong. Monopoly capitalism is the inevitable result of market competition and capital accumulation. Any capitalist, even a small entrepreneur or petty bourgeois, who employs another worker suffers the same abuse and exploitation, and it can even be worse, against workers. Unlike you, I have contact with this reality that you hide. All private property will be abolished without exception by workers, including entrepreneurs who are parasites who intensify their exploitation of workers because they cannot compete with the big capitalists and can only exist with the capitalist state granting privileges to smaller capitalists to further abuse their workers. Therefore, they should go bankrupt and be expropriated for collectivized production as collective property. The biggest capitalists must destroy the smallest capitalists, and state-owned companies must flood the market with cheap products so that the rest will go bankrupt, where they will be collectivized and socialized as property belonging to the entire society. Anyone who denies this is merely a lackey of the bourgeoisie who will be punished.
All rights won by workers only exist through collective struggle, organized as a class, for their supremacy, where the bourgeoisie will temporarily grant rights until they can withdraw them when they become complacent. You only serve the petty interest of wanting to compete in the market to exploit other workers, and therefore your fantasized interest lies in simply wanting to be a bourgeois and fantasizing about a society of only bourgeoisie defending private property. Every struggle for power for the proletariat class violates private property and all its contracts, which only exist in your mind because these contracts require the capitalist state to exist. Therefore, once again, I say to the petty bourgeoisie and its apologists like you: you must act in common with what you have with the proletarian class to collectivize and socialize the economy. Otherwise, you cling like a fool, identifying with the bourgeoisie. You pretend that this big bourgeoisie cheats unlike you by clinging to private property, and then you will be discarded like the fool you are. Remember, I feel no pity for the punishment that will be meted out to counterrevolutionaries like you who deny the supremacy of the proletarian class by defending private property.
>as i have explained, a society of ownership breeds democracy.Wrong. A society of ownership creates slavery, and only by abolishing private property will this end. A society before ownership is a society that organizes itself collectively without an owner for collective needs, just like the tribes in the Amazon. The colonists you imagine exist only to appropriate collective property that doesn't belong to an individual so that capitalists, landowners, and agents of imperialism can engage in primitive accumulation with the help of the state, intensifying the exploitation of workers by turning it into private property, which will open the way for the largest capitalists to come in with market competition.
>>2532839Some capitalists in the US and UE even today are betting for China style capitalism.
>>2533500>Everything that is collectively produced must be collectively controlledyou mean that everything must be stolen by the government? no thanks.
>propertyless massesa condition you fanatically fight for; propertylessness of the masses. its evil when capitalists do it, but good when you do it. curious, eh?
>Monopoly capitalism is the inevitable result of market competition and capital accumulationas marx says, capitalism presupposes generalised wage labour by a process of primitive accumulation (the organised theft and reappropriation of property by the state). the accumulation of capital is offset by the declining rate of profit, which then levels out competition for smaller firms in the market. its impossible to keep business booming, so what do you think happens?
>A society of ownership creates slavery, and only by abolishing private property will this end.you literally promote the enslavement of mankind as your politics. more communist doublespeak.
>>2533583>you mean that everything must be stolen by the government? no thanks.thats what you have now lol. you critique communism based on its results but for some reason you hold capitalism to a different standard. very dishonest
>>2533701to be fair (and I don't agree with him) adam smith anon has said in other posts that he thinks both capitalism and communism are the same thing and steal private property from the working class.
he calls himself a centrist liberal but his third positionist rhetoric reminds me of the petty bourgeois mass movements that composed the lower ranks in fascism. That Marxism and Capitalism are both two sides of the same coin was something the NSDAP was quite fond of saying, for example.
>>2533583>you mean that everything must be stolen by the government? no thanksThe workers themselves will take this property from you without the state or the courts recognizing your property. How will you maintain this property with the propertyless masses armed and organized collectively? Do you think a foolish petty bourgeois like you will be able to compete with the cheap products that will flood the market with the collective organization of these masses? Your destiny is bankruptcy and collectivization anyway, but I know you defend the parasites of the financial market, which will cease to exist when the banks are appropriated and the stock market is thrown in the trash. Any group of armed anarcho-communists can punish a fool like you as a gift to demonstrate that your private property doesn't exist, no matter how you complain.
>a condition you fanatically fight for; propertylessness of the masses. its evil when capitalists do it, but good when you do it. curious, eh?Did I say that what capitalists do is evil, or is that more of a projection of yours? Capitalists pursue their class interests to accumulate capital and use the state to further their interests while lying to others that the state is not an instrument for one class to oppress another. I do not deny this, and I know that the proletarian state will use its power to facilitate expropriations, occupations, nationalizations, collectivizations, socializations, and confiscations for the supremacy of the proletariat and the extinction of social classes with the abolition of private property. The workers and propertyless masses will be armed, and they will disarm you as a counterrevolutionary who denies the supremacy of the proletariat. Only class interests exist, and the morality you speak of is a fantasy to deceive the masses, hiding class interests behind it so that they do not seek power and remain complacent, being exploited by the capitalist class.
>as marx says, capitalism presupposes generalised wage labour by a process of primitive accumulation (the organised theft and reappropriation of property by the state). the accumulation of capital is offset by the declining rate of profit, which then levels out competition for smaller firms in the market. its impossible to keep business booming, so what do you think happens?Wrong again, the state arises from the contradictions of private property between those who have property and those who do not. Competition with the recognition of private property will already expropriate the petty bourgeoisie, who will be indebted, unable to compete with large-scale production. Without the state, private property is incapable of maintaining itself, and as you can see in the Paris Commune and the CNT-FAI Catalonia itself, when workers appropriate the means of production, such as factories, they spontaneously begin to organize collectively because the ruin of these properties quickly occurs if they are isolated, where capital always needs to reinvest more capital to accumulate more. If there is no expected result of more accumulation, it inevitably leads to the ruin of property. Conflict with other workers and society with consumers further accelerates this ruin, which requires the formation of a capitalist state. But if instead there is the dictatorship of the proletariat of armed workers, the minority of property owners can no longer exist, and those who are isolated will also eventually go bankrupt or will begin to use violence against other workers to exploit them. This will lead the masses to retaliate against this individual. With all this, all this private property becomes collective property, with collective organization to meet the needs of the population and collective planning, without the so-called capitalist state.
The very recognition of so-called "theft" is what expropriates a large portion of the population, with the recognition of private property, with what was formerly held in common, as with the British Enclosure.
So you know that the natural tendency, without the state maintaining private property, is for all this property to become common property for the entire population, and the petty bourgeoisie becomes an impossibility after the bourgeoisie is extinguished.
>you literally promote the enslavement of mankind as your politics. more communist doublespeakHow can it be slavery if there are no owners and the entire working population are citizens with equal social status? There is no accumulation of capital because there is no sale of goods for profit in the market. The slave is seen as private property separate from society, to be used by its owner, who is part of society, but the slave is separate from this society. You're saying that all primitive tribal organizations that share property in common are slaves to what, then? Since slavery arises with the separation of society into classes and the existence of private property, therefore the abolition of slavery arises with the abolition of private property that keeps the slave separate from this society. Just as the abolition of private property will cause all members of society to collectively organize all property, which will become collective without being owned by any one person, but only for the use of this society in its economic planning to meet its needs.
>>2530916>i would say that i am predisposed to liberalism. my first politics were a form of libertarianism when i was around 14. after that i got into hoppeanism since it seemed to give a focus on hard justice, which was one of my preoccupations. around 17, i hung around cliquey spaces like /acc and NRx twitter, but could never really adapt to it. after this i sort of fell out of politics and got into religion and philosophy. my interest in philosophy steered me into marxist spaces, where it was purely theoretical, not political. only later did i rest at being a centre-left liberal. my focus is still justice, including liberty. its not a very interesting story. the grandness of any political exposition i offer is only in elaborating what is actually present in our existing institutions, and so when you cite people already encoded into the western canon, there is this amazement that things didnt just begin at a year zero, like with how marx is treated, as inventing every concept he espoused, when he hardly invented anything himself, to his own admission. marx as an archivist of sorts was still a dazzling genius who is rightfully respected, but respect and worship are the same differences between reverance and idolatry. the disputes i mostly have with people here havent really been intellectual, but interpersonal. a lot of unpleasant, deceptive, hypocritical people are on this website, who think that killing the messenger kills the message. but think about it, what exactly is my original sin? why am i notorious? no one can say. the issue is with them. 🤷🏻♂️>>2532833>i was born in the north west of england into a working class irish catholic family. my mother was a whore, so had 4 children out of wedlock to 3 different abusive men before the time she was 30. she married the third and had a fifth child later on. growing up, it was rather modest, but manageable. there were times i was embarrassed about having little money around my friends, but we were all in the same general socio-economic bracket, so it wasnt stratified in any way. i did generally well in school, but had already burned out by the time the final exams came around; i could have done better but i was fully indulged in teenage nihilism.wow i never thought we would get the smithanon backstory.
>>2533864>to be fairwhy would you do that
>>2534596default mode of operation I suppose
>>2533955>Did I say that what capitalists do is evil, or is that more of a projection of yours?right, so capitalists are not evil to you, but are actually progressive, which makes sense, since youre a marxist. you love capitalism because it brings you communism.
>Without the state, private property is incapable of maintaining itselfwait, so the capitalist market is upheld by the state and not a nebulous "competition" that renders humanity propertyless? thanks for proving my point once again.
>How can it be slavery if there are no ownersthe definition of slavery is propertylessness, since we also as free men possess ourselves.
>>2533701>thats what you have now lolso you support privatising state property? or is this another bit of empty rhetoric? youre incredibly boring.
>>2534603see how you are shamed for being a human being?
>>2533864>capitalism and communism are the same thingno, marxism specifically is a politics which aims to sublate the despotisms of the system into a state-capitalist regime. other forms of communism are nominally acceptable, such as graeber understands it.
>That Marxism and Capitalism are both two sides of the same coin was something the NSDAP was quite fond of sayingi have criticised nazi economic theories here:
>>2509325>>2391702>>2391805>>2434712>>2460758 >>2534712>right, so capitalists are not evil to you, but are actually progressive, which makes sense, since youre a marxist. you love capitalism because it brings you communism.The development of capitalism is the inevitable result of technological advancement in the previous mode of production, the formation of the bourgeoisie with large-scale production that cannot exist individually, destroying the petty bourgeoisie and creating the proletariat, which then organizes itself. Eventually, as time passes, with the formation of the capitalist economy, scientific socialism begins to form as a theory, analyzing the society that is forming, uniting the socialist theory that was developed by the previous utopian socialists that was separated from the proletariat, to recognize this class as the revolutionary agent, uniting theory with the practice of class struggle. To wish to return to a mode of production with individualized property is to regress to reactionaryism, just as capitalism produces socially, but with private extraction for the benefit of the capitalist owner, exploiting wage labor to receive profit from surplus value. The revolution will make this property be organized collectively for the needs of the population in its economic planning.
>wait, so the capitalist market is upheld by the state and not a nebulous "competition" that renders humanity propertyless? thanks for proving my point once again.You're confusing what I wrote. When you have a portion of the population as owners and another without, violence inevitably occurs, leading to the dismantling of this property. This is why the state, as an entity, emerges to maintain this class of owners maintaining its system of exploitation and hypocritical actions. If it benefits this exploitative ruling class, it will create a superstructure of ideas and justifications for its power to try to pacify the masses, along with repression and threats to maintain this subjugation of private property, serving the interests of capital accumulation. If these masses of propertyless workers are armed, which is a sign of the dictatorship of the proletariat being formed, these owners cannot coerce or accumulate capital. The interdependence of workers with one another erodes the capacity of capital circulation, where they begin to organize collectively with the appropriation of the means of production and distribution. The petty bourgeoisie cannot maintain its isolation, except for self-sufficient peasants with some small-scale production in a technologically underdeveloped region isolated from capitalism, as was the case in the backward semi-feudal countries where these peasants lived. This is no longer a problem today, with globalization and the availability of technologies such as electricity and communication, along with the large-scale production of goods for the market already spreading throughout the world. Even in these cases where there are no means of production, it is not a problem to acquire technologies and use state-owned enterprises to industrialize an agrarian country today. Therefore, the socialization of the economy can now be achieved much faster than before to initiate a socialist economy. The dictatorship of the proletariat will use state capitalism if backward modes of production still exist to prepare these isolated peasants for collective labor in cooperatives.
>the definition of slavery is propertylessness, since we also as free men possess ourselves.Wrong. No one owns himself, the slave only has a relationship as property of an owner, this slave stops being a slave when he abolishes his existence as property and has returned to some society that considers him a member as a person and not property of an owner.
Let's look at the definition of slavery, then, if you want to obfuscate, starting with the Cambridge Dictionary:
<the activity of legally owning other people who are forced to work for or obey you:<the condition of being legally owned by someone else and forced to work for or obey them:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/slaveryNow let's look at the Encyclopedia Britannica:
<slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.
<There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined. Nevertheless, there is general agreement among historians, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and others who study slavery that most of the following characteristics should be present in order to term a person a slave. The slave was a species of property; thus, he belonged to someone else. In some societies slaves were considered movable property, in others immovable property, like real estate. They were objects of the law, not its subjects.https://www.britannica.com/topic/slavery-sociology/The-law-of-slaveryNow let's see the difference between a slave and a proletarian with 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 Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm >>2534712>capitalists are not evil to you, but are actually progressive, which makes sense, since youre a marxist. you love capitalism because it brings you communism.This reads like trolling. The Marxist position has always been that while capitalism has historically played a progressive role in developing productive forces, it remains fundamentally exploitative and contradictory. Capitalism is seen as a necessary step in history. It creates the material conditions for socialism and communism. But that doesn’t mean Marxists "love" capitalism. It is a system that is in constant crisis, where wealth and power are hoarded by a few. Communism, by contrast, aims for the sublation of these contradictions, where wealth is distributed according to need rather than profit. Communism doesn’t come from an uncritical acceptance of capitalism, it comes from recognizing that capitalism has reached its historical limits, produced its own grave diggers, and needs to be replaced by a system that prioritizes human needs over profit.
>“A steadily increasing proportion of capital in industry,” writes Hilferding, “ceases to belong to the industrialists who employ it. They obtain the use of it only through the medium of the banks which, in relation to them, represent the owners of the capital. On the other hand, the bank is forced to sink an increasing share of its funds in industry. Thus, to an ever greater degree the banker is being transformed into an industrial capitalist. This bank capital, i.e., capital in money form, which is thus actually transformed into industrial capital, I call ‘finance capital’.” “Finance capital is capital controlled by banks and employed by industrialists.”[1]
>This definition is incomplete insofar as it is silent on one extremely important fact—on the increase of concentration of production and of capital to such an extent that concentration is leading, and has led, to monopoly. But throughout the whole of his work, and particularly in the two chapters preceding the one from which this definition is taken, Hilferding stresses the part played by capitalist monopolies.
>The concentration of production; the monopolies arising therefrom; the merging or coalescence of the banks with industry—such is the history of the rise of finance capital and such is the content of that concept.
>We now have to describe how, under the general conditions of commodity production and private property, the “business operations” of capitalist monopolies inevitably lead to the domination of a financial oligarchy. It should be noted that German—and not only German—bourgeois scholars, like Riesser, Schulze-Gaevernitz, Liefmann and others, are all apologists of imperialism and of finance capital. Instead of revealing the “mechanics” of the formation of an oligarchy, its methods, the size of its revenues “impeccable and peccable,” its connections with parliaments etc., etc., they obscure or gloss over them. They evade these “vexed questions” by pompous and vague phrases, appeals to the “sense of responsibility” of bank directors, by praising “the sense of duty” of Prussian officials, giving serious study to the petty details of absolutely ridiculous parliamentary bills for the “supervision” and “regulation” of monopolies, playing spillikins with theories, like, for example, the following “scholarly” definition, arrived at by Professor Liefmann: “Commerce is an occupation having for its object the collection, storage and supply of goods.”[2] (The Professor’s bold-face italics.) . . . From this it would follow that commerce existed in the time of primitive man, who knew nothing about exchange, and that it will exist under socialism! https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch03.htm >>2535389>Wrong. No one owns himself, the slave only has a relationship as property of an ownerWrong. Everyone is a slave by virtue of being born in Sin. Ever since Eve ate the apple because we are separate from Him. Submission to Gods Will is true freedom. Thats why God invented money when creating the world; to represent the original debt we have to Him for making this perfect place and thats why God made capitalism Human Nature. Jealous commies just want to take my God given birthright. "Money is the jealous God of Israel". Projection! Commies just want everyone to be equally poor digging and filling holes to make mudpies because they think labor makes value even if people dont want to eat your dirt cakes. Rand and Hayek actually made unique contributions to economics unlike Marx and Engels who were merely record keepers of greater men.
Marx wrote to Engels on 2 November 1867: “I once believed the separation of Ireland from England to be impossible. I now regard it as inevitable, although federation may follow upon separation” (MECW 42: 460). He elaborated a few weeks later:
What the Irish need is:
1. Self-government and independence from England.
2. Agrarian revolution …
3. Protective tariffs against England. From 1783–1801 every branch of industry in Ireland flourished. By suppressing the protective tariffs which the Irish parliament had established, the Union destroyed all industrial life in Ireland. The little bit of linen industry is in no way a substitute … As soon as the Irish became independent, necessity would turn them, like Canada, Australia, etc., into protectionists (MECW 42: 486–7).
wait so marx was in favor of protectonism?
>>2535870>Marx wrote to Engels on 2 November 1867: “I once believed the separation of Ireland from England to be impossible. I now regard it as inevitable, althoughHyperconfident predictions falling flat followed by goalpost repositioning seems to the core of Marxist thought.
>>2523126>Some might take the idea that Marx predicted revolution would occur first in the advanced countries, you could take this as evidence he is wrong, or you could say you disagree, or you could say the fact that it occurred in underdeveloped backwards nations first proves you right and him wrong. The funny thing is later marx was increasingly changing his mind about this, slowly recognizing the revolutionary and socialist potential of the undeveloped east (russia)
>>2535882>increasingly changing his mind about this, slowly recognizing the revolutionary and socialist potentialalmost like how the same analysis comes to different conclusions based on different material conditions or how people make different choices when new information becomes available
weird how that happens. i guess thats just like hypocrisy or something
>>2535887I think you are misunderstanding what the original goalpost was if you think that it moved.
>>2530916> /acc and NRx twitterhmmmmmmmmm
>after that i got into hoppeanismHMMMMMMMMMMM
was park chung hee a proto dengist
>>2535702no offence, but you sound uneducated. marx didnt merely see capitalism as a necessary evil, but as the very engine of social progress. he admired capitalism. marx's communism is built from capitalism, which is why he preserves all of its essential attributes in his theory of lower phase communism, while rejecting all socialist alternatives.
>>2535389>The development of capitalism is the inevitable result of technological advancementlook up "primitive accumulation".
>When you have a portion of the population as owners and another withouti am advocating for universal ownership; you are advocating for universal dispossession.
>No one owns himselfdoes a worker own his labour-power?
>definition of slaveryexactly what i said; to not be in possession of oneself.
>>2536025this is a better hoppe quote:
<I will present a series of theses that constitute the hard-core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct.https://mises.org/mises-wire/marxist-and-austrian-class-analysis >>2536083>which is why he preserves all of its essential attributes in his theory of lower phase communismexcept he doesn't do that, because for him communism is not an ideal state of affairs to be established
>>2536083>this is a better hoppe quote:<I will present a series of theses that constitute the hard-core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct.>https://mises.org/mises-wire/marxist-and-austrian-class-analysiswhat does ya (ex)boi hoppe go on to say in the very next sentences of that article?
<Then I will show how these true theses are derived in Marxism from a false starting point. Finally, I want to demonstrate how Austrianism in the Mises-Rothbard tradition can give a correct but categorically different explanation of their validity. >>2536025 everyone who claims to "like the austrian school of economics" is a midwit 100% of the time. they think that mentioning the austrians makes them seem smart for some reason
>>2536083>look up "primitive accumulation."With technological advancements for large-scale production, the privatization of common lands that peasants used to become the private property of those who own capital, industrialists obtain labor to be exploited in factories, while landowners can expand, with the inevitable ruin of peasants isolated in competition. Fantasizing about creating a petty-bourgeois utopia is reactionary, because the conditions of backward modes of production created capitalism, and its path is monopolization, following its interests of accumulating more capital when there is market competition, with winners reinvesting this capital to become more capital, and the losers, who have lost their autonomy, eventually becoming, for the most part, common workers. This will occur at an accelerated rate as capitalism's crises occur in the market, with those with greater accumulated capital buying out the losers with less capital. Therefore, its direction will be the consolidation of this capital in fewer hands, as long as the capitalist state can maintain the capitalist class as the ruling class.
>i am advocating for universal ownership; you are advocating for universal dispossession.It is not possible to have a property owner occupying what is produced for the population's needs without organizing this property collectively. Eventually, blackmail and coercion against the rest of the population occur to exploit those who are propertyless. Even if you transform all properties into cooperatives, there will be conflict over natural resources such as rivers and regional differences that led several of these companies to go bankrupt, unable to compete in the market due to luck, climate, soil differences, and the nature of the environment where each company is located. This occurred in Yugoslavia, creating an unemployed mass of petty-bourgeois who went bankrupt as they became indebted to the more prosperous cooperatives, slowly restoring the relations of subjugation capitalism. The state had to constantly intervene because of the interests of the heads of prosperous cooperatives who had interests against the rest of the consumer population and against the unemployed, along with the impoverished petty-bourgeois. This led to class struggle that eventually built various prejudices that fed opportunists who used nationalism. To manipulate the masses, following the interests of cooperatives competing in the market, seeking to produce for profit. This creates instability with the restoration of all capitalist relations of exploitation or violence until private property is abolished to end the regional inequality that fuels chauvinistic prejudices. The needs produced with the means of production are organized according to the needs of the population, not sold on the market for profit. Therefore, it is necessary to equalize the profits and losses of companies, which will be organized as collective property of society or as cooperatives that do not compete with each other.
The moment you recognize private property, you are already removing access to use from the rest of the population, who will be exploited by those who own the property, who will use the state to maintain capital accumulation through competition, eliminating those who do not follow the logic of intensifying the exploitation of workers to accumulate more capital with the boom and bust crises that will concentrate all this property in the hands of the largest capitalists. Today's society is the result of this. You are not against anything because the big capitalist is not cheating, unlike the reactionaries you imagine. If you pretend to rebel against the capitalist by expropriating his private property, other workers will also expropriate, but only by collectively organizing will the property cease to be controlled by the capitalist. Any isolated individual will be considered just another criminal who will be arrested for going against the order of the capitalist state, which already recognizes the interests of the ruling class of capitalists, aiming to serve the accumulation of capital. You are merely idealizing what current society already is, fantasizing about decentralization, when centralization is what demonstrates the superiority of large-scale production against the petty bourgeoisie. Therefore, you are simply being a reactionary who merely justifies current financial capitalism while pretending to be against it. The capitalist, simply through inequality and capital accumulation, will already, out of self-interest, influence the society where he or she lives for his or her own benefit, giving himself or herself advantages. To deny this is to dishonestly ignore the power relationship and how private property operates in competition. No matter how many reforms you try, any state that conciliates classes will be influenced by these capitalists, so that capital accumulation expropriates the population to exploit the workers, who will have to sell their labor power to meet their needs, which will then be in the hands of the capitalists as commodities in the market.
By abolishing private property, we are democratizing it so that the entire population can collectively organize it, which is a real democracy without slave owners, where all workers, regardless of nationality, can fraternize in solidarity because there is no more competition. While you are merely fantasizing about settlers who constantly needed the state to expropriate the land collectively owned by natives to turn it into private property, which, after this, becomes no different from today's society. Or do you want to restore the old patriarchal control of women to be abused and children to be abused by relatives, instead of everything being the social responsibility of everyone to care for children and the elderly without passing the costs on to others? Where I live, I know of the abuse of older people close to me, where financial control through private property was used to control and abuse women and keep them trapped in the cycle of abuse. I can offer the path forward, with everyone having social equality, abolishing private property just as capitalists undo ancient traditions, ending isolated property that maintained patriarchal relations with private property, while you can only fantasize about returning as a reactionary who does not want property to be social and collective, to return this abuse of men against women and of parents against children, which is the basis of private property and disappears with its end.
>does a worker own his labour-power?The worker sells his labor power socially, interacting with society, and everything that is produced is produced socially. However, with private extraction in the case of capitalism and socialism, this private relationship of the capitalist will be abolished with what is already socially produced, which should belong to society as a whole. A person's self-ownership is a contradictory oxymoron that ignores social responsibilities such as caring for children until a new worker is formed, the obligation to maintain health by preventing the spread of contagious diseases that requires collective organization, and the need to be informed about food and beverages for consumption, which contradicts the presence of additives and unhealthy substances, coupled with misinformation from those who seek to profit in the market. The worker only has the capacity for freedom through the knowledge acquired collectively in society. Only by organizing collectively with social equality will he or she be able to meet his or her needs and rationally decide collectively on his or her actions with others. Otherwise, he or she will be at the mercy of nature and the class that controls the means of production, which will keep him or her limited. In the case of capitalism, he or she will simply be at the mercy of the logic of capital accumulation. Without a social relationship, property does not exist. This person could be rejected as a member of this society if, instead of being a subject by law, he or she were someone's property, as is the case with a slave, who would be an object to be used as the private property of an owner.
>exactly what i said; to not be in possession of oneself.Wrong. None of the dictionaries mention being a self-owner in the case of a slave or someone who isn't a slave. In all societies, you can see limits to what a person can do for themselves as a citizen or free subject, from birth until they grow up as an adult. Not to mention the relationship of the serf to a land contract, the indentured servant who is bound by the contract, the worker trapped in debt who is no longer able to pay for the control their owner has over their needs, which keeps the worker trapped in debt bondage. The capitalist state serves only to maintain capital's freedom to accumulate. Private property is what keeps workers subjugated, and they gain more rights as soon as the relationship of private property ownership is dissolved, socializing it. As soon as there are no longer relationships of property owner to a person, collectively dissolving, you are democratizing the economy instead of masquerading as a petty tyrant to threaten others by being in a relationship separated from use.
>>2536757only a few thousand more words and you will have convinced him
>>2536083>no offence, but you sound uneducated. marx didnt merely see capitalism as a necessary evil, but as the very engine of social progress. Let's remind the audience what I said so they don't have to scroll back up:"
<The Marxist position has always been that while capitalism has historically played a progressive role in developing productive forces, it remains fundamentally exploitative and contradictory. Capitalism is seen as a necessary step in history. It creates the material conditions for socialism and communism. But that doesn’t mean Marxists "love" capitalism. You have not shown me to be wrong you have merely insulted me as uneducated and then ignored the nuance of what I said.
Marx does not see capitalism as "the very engine of social progress" (your words, not his). For Marx, the development of the productive forces (such as technology, labor, and capital) is crucial for the transformation of society, but it is always shaped by the specific mode of production in any given historical era (for instance, slavery, feudalism, capitalism).
For Marx, the productive forces must reach a certain level of development before they can come into conflict with the existing relations of production, leading to social change. So, it isn't "capitalism" drives all social progress universally across time, but the specific ways in which the productive forces develop and interact with the relations of production within different historical contexts and modes of production.
<“No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society." - Karl Marx, from the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)
What else did I say?
<[Capitalism] is a system that is in constant crisis, where wealth and power are hoarded by a few. Communism, by contrast, aims for the sublation of these contradictions, where wealth is distributed according to need rather than profit. Communism doesn’t come from an uncritical acceptance of capitalism, it comes from recognizing that capitalism has reached its historical limits, produced its own grave diggers, and needs to be replaced by a system that prioritizes human needs over profit.This is completely in line with everything Marx wrote about and I don't know why you are pretending otherwise except maybe as an elaborate troll. Yes communism is supposed to be built on top of the historical progress of capitalism, just like capitalism was built on top of the historical progress of feudalism, but that doesn't mean Communism uncritically accepts capitalism anymore than capitalism uncritically accepts feudalism.
What does Marx say about Capitalism in Chapter 24 of Volume 1 of Capital?
<So long as the laws of exchange are observed in every single act of exchange the mode of appropriation can be completely revolutionised without in any way affecting the property rights which correspond to commodity production. These same rights remain in force both at the outset, when the product belongs to its producer, who, exchanging equivalent for equivalent, can enrich himself only by his own labour, and also in the period of capitalism, when social wealth becomes to an ever-increasing degree the property of those who are in a position to appropriate continually and ever afresh the unpaid labour of others.Marx literally describes Capitalism as a historical period in which social wealth becomes the property of people appropriating unpaid labor.
Chapter 33 of Volume 1:
<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 laborer.From the afterword of the second edition:
<The peculiar historical development of German society therefore forbids, in that country, all original work in bourgeois economy; but not the criticism of that economy. So far as such criticism represents a class, it can only represent the class whose vocation in history is the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production and the final abolition of all classes — the proletariat.Does this sound like someone who is totally uncritical of capitalism and sees it as the eternal engine of social progress? No. He sees the proletariat as having a role in history to overthrow capitalism and abolish classes.
Let's look at Chapter 15 Section 9 of Volume 1:
<What could possibly show better the character of the capitalist mode of production, than the necessity that exists for forcing upon it, by Acts of Parliament, the simplest appliances for maintaining cleanliness and health? In the potteries the Factory Act of 1864 "has whitewashed and cleansed upwards of 200 workshops, after a period of abstinence from any such cleaning, in many cases of 20 years,and in some, entirely," (this is the "abstinence" of the capitalist!) "in which were employed 27,800 artisans, hitherto breathing through protracted days and often nights of labour, a mephitic atmosphere, and which rendered an otherwise comparatively innocuous occupation, pregnant with disease and death. The Act has improved the ventilation very much." [214] At the same time, this portion of the Act strikingly shows that the capitalist mode of production, owing to its very nature, excludes all rational improvement beyond a certain point.So Marx is saying here that not only must capitalists be forced by law to give a shit about public health, but that
capitalism itself, as a mode of production, excludes all rational improvement beyond a certain point or, in other words, is only an engine of social progress up to a certain point. This is totally in line with what I am saying.
>>2536507read "critique of the gotha programme" (1875)
>>2536557do you entirely lack a sense of humour?
>>2536757>With technological advancements for large-scale productionprimitive accumulation is a phenomenon divorced from technological development… again, you make up things in your head then delude yourself into believing its true. i list the laws marx discusses here:
>>2528411>industrialistsprimitive accumulation occurs in the 16th century; the industrial revolution occurs in the late 18th century…
>yes, i want humanity to be dispossessed of its own property.right, so you support a regime of universal slavery, the same as the capitalists. youve already said that its againat the interests of workers to possess their own property, so why all this unnecessary yapping?
>The worker sells his labor power sociallydoes a worker possess their own labour-power? [y/n]
>None of the dictionaries mention being a self-owner in the case of a slave or someone who isn't a slave.so you can own other people but cant own yourself?
>>2536940>Marx does not see capitalism as "the very engine of social progress" […] it is always shaped by the specific mode of production in any given historical erahistory changes forms of society, but does history "progress" until capitalism? the concept of progress is retroactive, which comes from capital's abstraction of labour as "value". even adam smith sees that the division of labour orients our consciousness with particularity to the form of property considered (wealth of nations, book 5, chapter 1). in the 1844 manuscripts, marx places "progress" in the economy itself (as the antagonism between forms of estrangement; labour and capital), which is an entirely modern (capitalist) idea, as opposed to ancient ways of thinking (e.g. the hellenic poets; homer and hesiod, or the authors of the bible).
>This is completely in line with everything Marx wrote aboutread "critique of the gotha programme" (1875)
>communism is supposed to be built on top of the historical progress of capitalismand what is this progress?
>Marx literally describes Capitalism as a historical period in which social wealth becomes the property of people appropriating unpaid laboryes… read chapter 32 of capital vol. 1. the dispossession of property by its private concentration spreads social wealth. its this capitalist structure which underpins marx's communist concept, where the state simply replaces the capitalists.
>Does this sound like someone who is totally uncritical of capitalism and sees it as the eternal engine of social progress? uncritical? marx's only issue with capitalism is that it doesnt go far enough. he is a super-capitalist thinker.
>only an engine of social progress up to a certain pointbut why is capitalism progressive in the first place? what are the conditions which make it able to give us communism? the centralisation of property. thats it.
>>2537207>uncritical? marx's only issue with capitalism is that it doesnt go far enough.because it socializes production (which enables the creation of more walth) but privatizes profit (which keeps wealth concentrated in few hands). The point is to socialize the results as well as the process. So yes, in terms of socialization capitalism doesn't go far enough. But in terms of total disregard for health and public safety capitalism goes too far. You were literally given quotes in which Marx criticizes the capitalist mode of production, capitalism, for its total disregard of public health and safety as well as its tendency to "exclude all rational improvement beyond a certain point."
>but why is capitalism progressive in the first place? its progress is relative. relative to what? to feudalism.
>what are the conditions which make it able to give us communism? the centralisation of property. thats it.No, that's not it at all:
<Instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdfas well as the abolition of inheritance, you know, that process where someone with 500 billion dollars of private property like Elon Musk, more than he could possibly spend on personal consumption in several hundred life times, can just pass it on to children with zero input from society. And how did he get that 500 billion through exploitation of labor and subsidies.
>>2537207>read "critique of the gotha programme" (1875)this one?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmhe doesn't "preserve" capitalisms "essential attributes" as a matter of decree but hypothesizes necessary stages of development according to material history. its not a checklist of policy ideals. what remains of capitalism depends on the material conditions and not preserved according to your imagined dogma
The myth that Böhm-Bawerk “ended” Marx’s value theory is one of the oldest ghost stories in economics. What he actually did was misunderstand it, and in doing so, exposed the limits of bourgeois economics. In 1896, Böhm-Bawerk published Karl Marx and the Close of His System. It’s often described as the definitive refutation of Marx’s value theory. It was an 80-page polemic, not at all a systematic demolition.
Marx’s defenders also didn’t “change the rules” after 1896. Hilferding refuted Böhm-Bawerk point by point in 1904. Other writere from Bukharin to Sweezy to Yaffe to Kliman and more demonstrated that Marx’s logic is consistent when read on its own terms. The so-called “rule change” of Marxists like Rubin or Heinrich wasn’t evasion either more so than a “deepening.” They returned to Marx’s actual project: to uncover the social mediation of labour through capital-value (money), not to compute equilibrium prices.
Ironically, it was marginalists like Böhm-Bawerk who changed the rules by abandoning coherent theory when their own contradictions emerged. After the Cambridge capital debates, neoclassical economics dropped any measurable concept of “capital” or “utility.” Meanwhile Marx’s framework still explains the world: the tendency of the profit rate to fall, the recurrence of crisis, the structural inequality of value production, the divergence between human need and capital’s logic.
Böhm-Bawerk didn’t close Marx’s system. He failed to grasp it. The TSSI shows that Marx’s value theory is both logically consistent and historically predictive. Value and price differ in form but belong to one total process: the valorization of labour in time. Capitalism itself has rendered the verdict. The crises Böhm-Bawerk’s theory can’t explain are exactly those Marx foresaw. Every breakdown, every cycle, every moment when profit devours life confirms what Marx revealed: capital is a moving contradiction.
Look at the data. Since 1950, machine-made goods (appliances, clothes, telecoms) got cheaper, while labour-intensive sectors (education, health, care) exploded in cost. The difference isn’t “technology,”it’s the relation between living and dead labour. Image Automation transfers old value; it cannot create new. Only living labour produces new value. As capital replaces workers with machines, commodity prices fall while the social services that depend on human labour soar. Marx predicted this dynamic exactly. Mainstream economics calls this “value-added,” meaning what a firm adds to a product. But in Marx’s terms, “value-added” is what workers add, and which capital subtracts. Profit isn’t magical enhancement; it’s the money-form of unpaid labour.
That’s why Böhm-Bawerk’s critique misses the mark: he defined value from the buyer’s satisfaction and the capitalist’s ledger. Marx defined it from social labour itself: the collective human activity every price still presupposes. The empirical record keeps proving Marx right. Prices fall where living labor is expelled, and rise where it remains essential. The law of value is not a relic. It’s the hidden logic behind every curve on that chart. Marx wasn’t refuted in 1896. He was vindicated.
>>2538378this is a good post and I agree with its content, but it seems copy pasted from Cockshott's blog or something, especially here:
>The difference isn’t “technology,”it’s the relation between living and dead labour. Image Automation transfers old valuethe "image" inserted randomly in the text must have been a caption from a blog image in the middle of a paragraph, no?
So please share the source if there is one.
>>2537207>do you entirely lack a sense of humour?seemed more like a dodge than a joke tbh
Dohaciel Ygzgzot
@ygzgzot
Neo-Fundamentalist Marxist heretic. Alienated but never resigned. Against capital’s barbarity; for revolutionary & internationalist humanism. A world to win!
seems kinda based ngl
>>2537328>its progress is relative. relative to what? to feudalism.what has been progressed from feudalism? again, read chapter 32 of capital vol. 1. what is "progressive" is the alternation of property relations by systematic theft. what is "progressive" to marx is private monopoly.
>>2537644>its not a wage, its a labour certificate(tm)!>>2538407so yes, it seems that no fun is allowed with you.
>>2538378>The myth that Böhm-Bawerk “ended” Marx’s value theory is one of the oldest ghost stories in economics. What he actually did was misunderstand it…what exactly does bawerk misunderstand?
>capital-value (money)you surely mean commodity-value? capital is money "in motion" by the means of its self-expansion (M-C-M').
>Ironically, it was marginalists like Böhm-Bawerk who changed the rules by abandoning coherent theory when their own contradictions emerged.such as…?
>neoclassical economicsbawerk is part of the austrian school of economics, which differs from the neoclassical school.
>the tendency of the profit rate to fallwhich is a concept explicitly affirmed in both neoclassical and austrian thought, and which also has precedence in smith and ricardo, not marx alone.
>the structural inequality of value productionagain, this is present in jevons.
>Böhm-Bawerk didn’t close Marx’s system. He failed to grasp ithow?
>Value and price "differ in form"nope. according to marx, price is simply the form of value of commodities at the stage of money.
>Since 1950, machine-made goods (appliances, clothes, telecoms) got cheaper, while labour-intensive sectors (education, health, care) exploded in cost. look up "supply and demand".
>The difference isn’t “technology,”it’s the relation between living and dead labour. so the difference is that men have a soul while machines, slaves, animals and plants dont?
>Only living labour produces new value.translation: "only souls create new money"
>Prices fall where living labor is expelled, and rise where it remains essential. you mean that commodities are cheaper where production is cheaper?
Fellas I need help as a 70 I.Q. layman. When an economy has a trade deficit, I'm told that the money flows into the country in the form of capital flows in order to ensure a balance of payments. In essence, what this means is that the outside world net exports capital to the country with a trade deficit. Now I'm reading from economics-understanders on Reddit that this is usually fine depending on the size of the deficit and nature of the capital inflows, but my personal hunch is that trade deficits are always bad and ideally you have a trade surplus or at least balanced trade. Am I right? And if so, why is my hunch right?
>>2538988>fine depending on the size of the deficit and nature of the capital inflows, usually people who say this defend the neoliberal deindustrialized structure of western capitalist economies. And while this type of structure can produce "growth" the issue is as this financialized country sits on its increasing money pile, the countries which engage in industrial development keep growing and getting stronger, industry wise. Until finally you reach the point where these industrialized powers can easily beat the shit out of the financial power. (industry creates actual fucking goods that can be used to destroy the opposing power). For example, this happened with britain vs spain, and now is happening with america vs china
>>2538998That makes sense, thanks.
>>2538988trade deficit = more imports than exports
trade surplus = more exports than imports
balanced trade = balance of imports and exports
it all depends on what your economic strategy is as to whether or not any of these are good things. for example, china builds its national wealth from a "mercantilist" strategy of creating trade surpluses by exporting commodities across the world in exchange for foreign debt (money). the downside to a trade surplus is that while youre making money, youre spending less, so you also consume less. its the same principle as spending, saving and investing. a trade deficit then has the opposite problem since youre spending all your money, and without any inverse trend to balance trade, you will simply run out eventually.
>>2537207>primitive accumulation is a phenomenon divorced from technological development…Wrong again because this isn't connected to what I'm writing. For there to be generalized commodity production, so that capitalism can develop by accumulating capital in an economy, there must be changes in the superstructure of society, with the previous mode of production not adapted to the technological advancement that occurred. This is the case with the structures of feudalism, where with the technological advancement of large-scale production, the bourgeoisie were able to dismantle the control of the guilds, create a state that gives equal rights to men as long as it eliminates the obstacles to capital circulation, and prevents peasants and artisans from achieving self-sufficiency because they are unable to survive against competition in the production of goods in the market. This occurred as the bourgeoisie grew in the cities and technological advancements moved from artisanal production to production with manufacturing workers, to the factory system. As the bourgeoisie gained economic power, they used their influence to change the superstructure of the backward society in alliance with other working classes. As the proletariat developed, the bourgeoisie managed to establish itself as the new ruling class, becoming conservative as the proletariat became a force against it. Primitive accumulation depends on a bourgeoisie that strengthened itself to attempt to change society as organizational techniques were discovered. Wealth was accumulated by these bourgeoisie, which clashed with feudal privileges and the communal rights of peasants to their common lands. This was instrumental in consolidating capitalism, with colonization and mercantilism serving as the basis for generalized commodity production for the exploitation of wage labor, allowing it to spread rather than remain localized.
>primitive accumulation occurs in the 16th century; the industrial revolution occurs in the late 18th century…Primitive accumulation is a preparation for the conditions that form capitalism, helping it to consolidate or form. British enclosure did not occur specifically in the 16th century, but rather was a process that developed until the 18th and 19th centuries with the Parliamentary Enclosure Acts. The peak of enclosures occurred between the 17th and 19th centuries, and it is this process that Marx refers to as a whole.
>right, so you support a regime of universal slavery, the same as the capitalists. youve already said that its againat the interests of workers to possess their own property, so why all this unnecessary yapping?Wrong. Slavery needs to have a separation from the worker who is someone's property, all means of production being organized collectively do not have an owner to exploit the work done, again the definition of slavery depends on this person belonging to someone as property or being tied to a contract or property that belongs to another person who uses the legal process to recognize this exploitation of this worker, in the case of not having a legal process, constant force is necessary, which will eventually be part of the state that will maintain this system.
Bonded child labor with debt dependency is the inevitable result if you deny the collective social responsibility of raising children until they are old enough to have an education to form new adult workers for society, out of your desire to defend private property, which will be used to intensify exploitation.
Let's see an example with quotes:
<Machinery also revolutionises out and out the contract between the labourer and the capitalist, which formally fixes their mutual relations. Taking the exchange of commodities as our basis, our first assumption was that capitalist and labourer met as free persons, as independent owners of commodities; the one possessing money and means of production, the other labour-power. But now the capitalist buys children and young persons under age. Previously, the workman sold his own labour-power, which he disposed of nominally as a free agent. Now he sells wife and child. He has become a slave-dealer. [40] The demand for children’s labour often resembles in form the inquiries for negro slaves, such as were formerly to be read among the advertisements in American journals.
<“My attention,” says an English factory inspector, “was drawn to an advertisement in the local paper of one of the most important manufacturing towns of my district, of which the following is a copy: Wanted, 12 to 20 young persons, not younger than what can pass for 13 years. Wages, 4 shillings a week. Apply &c.” [41]
<The phrase “what can pass for 13 years,” has reference to the fact, that by the Factory Act, children under 13 years may work only 6 hours. A surgeon officially appointed must certify their age. The manufacturer, therefore, asks for children who look as if they were already 13 years old. The decrease, often by leaps and bounds in the number of children under 13 years employed in factories, a decrease that is shown in an astonishing manner by the English statistics of the last 20 years, was for the most part, according to the evidence of the factory inspectors themselves, the work of the certifying surgeons, who overstated the age of the children, agreeably to the capitalist’s greed for exploitation, and the sordid trafficking needs of the parents. In the notorious district of Bethnal Green, a public market is held every Monday and Tuesday morning, where children of both sexes from 9 years of age upwards, hire themselves out to the silk manufacturers. "The usual terms are 1s. 8d. a week (this belongs to the parents) and ‘2d. for myself and tea.’ The contract is binding only for the week. The scene and language while this market is going on are quite disgraceful.” [42] It has also occurred in England, that women have taken “children from the workhouse and let any one have them out for 2s. 6d. a week.” [43] In spite of legislation, the number of boys sold in Great Britain by their parents to act as live chimney-sweeping machines (although there exist plenty of machines to replace them) exceeds 2,000. [44] The revolution effected by machinery in the juridical relations between the buyer and the seller of labour-power, causing the transaction as a whole to lose the appearance of a contract between free persons, afforded the English Parliament an excuse, founded on juridical principles, for the interference of the state with factories. Whenever the law limits the labour of children to 6 hours in industries not before interfered with, the complaints of the manufacturers are always renewed. They allege that numbers of the parents withdraw their children from the industry brought under the Act, in order to sell them where “freedom of labour” still rules, i.e., where children under 13 years are compelled to work like grown-up people, and therefore can be got rid of at a higher price. But since capital is by nature a leveller, since it exacts in every sphere of production equality in the conditions of the exploitation of labour, the limitation by law of children’s labour, in one branch of industry, becomes the cause of its limitation in others.
<Karl Marx, 1867, Capital Volume One, Chapter Fifteen: Machinery and Modern Industryhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htmLet's take another quote from Capital, volume one:
<Without considering the expenditure of strength in lifting and carrying, such a child, in the sheds where bottle and flint glass are made, walks during the performance of his work 15-20 miles in every 6 hours! And the work often lasts 14 or 15 hours! In many of these glass works, as in the Moscow spinning mills, the system of 6 hours’ relays is in force. “During the working part of the week six hours is the utmost unbroken period ever attained at any one time for rest, and out of this has to come the time spent in coming and going to and from work, washing, dressing, and meals, leaving a very short period indeed for rest, and none for fresh air and play, unless at the expense of the sleep necessary for young boys, especially at such hot and fatiguing work…. Even the short sleep is obviously liable to be broken by a boy having to wake himself if it is night, or by the noise, if it is day.” Mr. White gives cases where a boy worked 36 consecutive hours; others where boys of 12 drudged on until 2 in the morning, and then slept in the works till 5 a.m. (3 hours!) only to resume their work. “The amount of work,” say Tremenheere and Tufnell, who drafted the general report, “done by boys, youths, girls, and women, in the course of their daily or nightly spell of labour, is certainly extraordinary.” (l.c., xliii. and xliv.) Meanwhile, late by night, self-denying Mr. Glass-Capital, primed with port-wine, reels out of his club homeward droning out idiotically. “Britons never, never shall be slaves!”
<Karl Marx, 1867, Capital Volume One, Chapter Ten: The Working-Dayhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#71a
>does a worker possess their own labour-power?If you're referring to workers having some right superior to what is socially produced, such as commodities, the means of production, and whatever is necessary to meet their needs, which belongs to the capitalist as private property, the answer is no. The proletarian maintains a minimum wage to maintain their subsistence, along with what is necessary for the worker's reproduction, but with the class struggle and the organization of these workers against the capitalist class, this labor wage can increase. The capitalist class will maintain its control over the means of production through its ownership relationship as long as there is no organization of workers organized as a class so that this socially produced property no longer has an owner who extracts surplus value to become capital. This will be achieved with the dictatorship of the proletariat. You have no rights under any natural law because natural law doesn't exist. Your rights come from class struggle, and the proletariat sells its labor power through its social relationship with the capitalist, who owns the means of production and all the necessities of the workers. These necessities are commodities on the market, and these workers need money to access them in a capitalist society. Selling your labor power doesn't give you the right to intellectual property or private property, which requires a state to maintain itself. As long as there is competition that eventually leads to winners who will want to maintain this property to exploit workers, the bourgeois state will always emerge to pursue the interests of the capitalist class. Otherwise, the inevitable violence of the masses will ensure that this property no longer belongs to an owner.
>so you can own other people but cant own yourself?The relationship of ownership is socially constructed, and with class struggle, it dissolves depending on a historical period and its technological level. As long as slave owners have a state that emerged to defend their economic interests, the slave will remain the property of an owner. This applies to all other groups of workers throughout history, such as the serf subjugated by the feudal lord, the proletarian to the capitalist who holds the property as their own private property. All these relationships are no more "true" or "false" than one another; the difference would be that the slave does not have the right to be an equal subject under the law, but rather as the private property of another person. There is no natural law that prevents all these private property relations from being eventually abolished. Self-ownership is an ideological fantasy that has no social relationship and therefore does not exist, because from its inception, private property arose to maintain control and abuse within a family, of men against women and parents against children, to control the inheritance of this property, which remains separate from the rest of society. Just as private property began, it will have an end.
How does value change when goods move across markets?
For example let's say a ton of steel takes 1000 SNLT hours in country A, while in country B it's 200 SNLT hours due to higher automation.
So if A exports to B, is value being destroyed? Similarly, if B exports to A, is value being added?
Unique IPs: 196