Evicting homeowners is class struggle. This fuck was a massive chud. Boycott small business porky. Evict small homeowner porky. Financialization is progressive.
71 posts and 9 image replies omitted.>>678245Both trade unions and tenant "unions" tend to be retarded in all honesty, but at least unions have workers who are there to protect themselves from the encroachment of capital as workers, the tenant union guys, often interclass, move for petite bourgeois reforms like rent controls and have no agency after living standards improve marginally.
Like labour struggles over wages and working conditions actually improve the conditions of the proletariat and strengthen their association. Meanwhile controls on and prices completely disregard the law of value and their consequences long term results in more proletarians being unhoused, and the petite bourgeoisie, retards like you all, are the only long term benefactors of it. This doesn't intensify class struggle or develop it further at all.
>>678790>>678781lol building developers will not build anything that does not turn a profit for them
stop being proudhonists who think you can make capitalism work in whatever way you want without abolishing it first. reading marx should prepare you to understand the contradiction inherent in pursuing rent control and maintaining a capitalist market for real estate
>>678792>Stop thinking that your solution of "abolish capitalism" and "reading up on Marx" is gonna fix the problem.what are you talking about you blabbering ape. you didnt even read the post you illiterate fuck
>>678796>marxism is "applied in a country"lol?????????
>>678383You know it's funny. The Bolsheviks ran into the problem of the peasantry, which outnumbered the proletariat in Russia, having fundamentally different material interests from the goals of the revolution. They had struggle sessions over it, even. It culminated in Stalin purging the old Bolsheviks and turning the peasants into a serf-like underclass (literally not allowed to leave farms, look it up) that under the threat of violence would work to feed the industrial proletariat. There were many peasant revolts, as you can imagine. But ultimately, the paradox of one class producing food, and another class depending on that production of food, yet the two classes having fundamentally different material interests, remained unresolved. Are peasants the enemy of the proletariat? To this day, unless you're a Maoist, nobody has really answered this question. Perhaps because of the implication, the food.
>>679051the peasantry doesnt exist anymore
>Are peasants the enemy of the proletariat?literally yes as evidenced by your post
>>679116Marx literally says that every capitalist is a merchant. This is in capital
>>679119There are no capitalist enterprises in Communist China. There are independent proletarian dictated enterprises that are designed and operated by ingenius proletarian managers of production.
>>679126Wrong. There is no distinction. All capitalists must buy and sell commodities—all capitalists are merchants. Marx says this explicitly but you fail to read Kapital
>Within capitalist production merchant's capital is reduced from its former independent existence to a special phase in the investment of capital, and the levelling of profits reduces its rate of profit to the general average. It functions only as an agent of productive capital. The special social conditions that take shape with the development of merchant's capital, are here no longer paramount. On the contrary, wherever merchant's capital still predominates we find backward conditions. This is true even within one and the same country, in which, for instance, the specifically merchant towns present far more striking analogies with past conditions than industrial towns.>There is, consequently, a three-fold transition. First, the merchant becomes directly an industrial capitalist. This is true in crafts based on trade, especially crafts producing luxuries and imported by merchants together with the raw materials and labourers from foreign lands, as in Italy from Constantinople in the 15th century. Second, the merchant turns the small masters into his middlemen, or buys directly from the independent producer, leaving him nominally independent and his mode of production unchanged. Third, the industrialist becomes merchant and produces directly for the wholesale market.>In the Middle Ages, the merchant was merely one who, as Poppe rightly says, "transferred" the goods produced by guilds or peasants [Poppe, Geschichte der Technologie seit der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften bis an das Ende des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts, Band I, Göttingen. 1807, S. 70. — Ed.] The merchant becomes industrialist, or rather, makes craftsmen, particularly the small rural producers, work for him. Conversely, the producer becomes merchant. The master weaver, for instance, buys his wool or yarn himself and sells his cloth to the merchant, instead of receiving his wool from the merchant piecemeal and working for him together with his journeymen. The elements of production pass into the production process as commodities bought by himself. And instead of producing for some individual merchant, or for specified customers, he produces for the world of trade. The producer is himself a merchant. Merchant's capital does no more than carry on the process of circulation. Originally, commerce was the precondition for the transformation of the crafts, the rural domestic industries, and feudal agriculture, into capitalist enterprises. It develops the product into a commodity, partly by creating a market for it, and partly by introducing new commodity equivalents and supplying production with new raw and auxiliary materials, thereby opening new branches of production based from the first upon commerce, both as concerns production for the home and world-market, and as concerns conditions of production originating in the world-market. As soon as manufacture gains sufficient strength, and particularly large-scale industry, it creates in its turn a market for itself, by capturing it through its commodities. At this point commerce becomes the servant of industrial production, for which continued expansion of the market becomes a vital necessity. Ever more extended mass production floods the existing market and thereby works continually for a still greater expansion of this market for breaking out of its limits. What restricts this mass production is not commerce (in so far as it expresses the existing demand), but the magnitude of employed capital and the level of development of the productivity of labour. The industrial capitalist always has the world-market before him, compares, and must constantly compare, his own cost-prices with the market-prices at home, and throughout the world. In the earlier period such comparison fell almost entirely to the merchants, and thus secured the predominance of merchant's capital over industrial capital. >>679492The exchange-value of a commodity is derived from surplus-value contributed by labor. The price of the commodity, however, is NOT the same thing as its exchange-value. In normal conditions, meaning capitalism as dreamed up by capitalism defenders, there are many firms and they all compete with each other etc. and in these conditions the price will roughly have a tendency to be close to the exchange-value. However, supply and demand, market distortion, speculation, monopolies, etc. all affect the price of commodities, but this has NOTHING to do with labor, as labor per Marx is only relevant in the final exchange-value of a commodity, not its price.
Ergo, no, making a profit from re-selling commodities has nothing to do with exploitation. The exchange-value of the commodity has ALREADY been paid, the moment the commodity was exchanged from the original producer into the hands of the merchant. What remains, the final price set by the merchant, is market dynamics, whatever profit derived, a market happenstance, nothing to do with appropriating surplus value, anymore than gambling.
You did not read Capital.
Unique IPs: 24