Evicting homeowners is class struggle. This fuck was a massive chud. Boycott small business porky. Evict small homeowner porky. Financialization is progressive.
>>678146Fair enough; it's more accurate to say that your views are retarded, and you should correct them.
>>678147All of my jobs have been manual labor for the petite bourgeois. I'm well aware that, as a class, they're horrible people.
>>678150This is unironically more economically productive, small businesses are very inefficient compared to big businesses, because simply the big businesses have the ability to invest a portion of their capital to avaliable & latest production equipment while small businesses will still try operating with legacy stuff
In an unregulated market, the big business will always win with being able to profit less while producing more while the big business has to profit less from the same amount of output.
Down with the petty bourgeouis, long live the bourgeouis!
>>678150I mean it's no different than the counter-revolution of 1776. Little porky revolted against big porky and fucked over the working class.
>>678151Homes are the means of production for domestic and reproductive labor. We need a gay lifestyle of bathhouses, laundromats, cheap diners and so on.
>>678158MLs want to use the state to take the monopolies from the bourgeoisie.That's the opposite of Ancap.
Not sure why you insist we need millions of inefficient small businesses aka capitalism.
>>678155>small businesses are very inefficient compared to big businessesthats not true at all. a bigger business means bigger waste, since they can afford it. thats why you can scam big businesses out of millions, since its impossible to keep track of all accounting.
>In an unregulated market, the big business will always win with being able to profit less while producing more while the big business has to profit less from the same amount of output.in an unregulated market, big business wouldnt have subsidies to keep themselves afloat. its weird seeing "marxists" fail to recognise the decline of profit for larger amounts of capital employed.
>Down with the petty bourgeouis, long live the bourgeouis!we already know what side youre on.
>>678157>Homes are the means of production for domestic and reproductive labor>we need gay..yeah, so you also support rainbow capitalism, the same as the ruling class. keep conforming to a stereotype.
>>678159he only likes the PRC because it doesnt allow black crime. he says this in "the dark enlightenment".
>>678160at least you admit that all you want is state capitalism.
>>678163yes it was…
its nick land's glazing of mencius moldbug and a shameless advocacy for "neo-cameralist" plutocracy.
>>678165moldbug wrote "unqualified reservations", "an open letter to open-minded progressives" and "how dawkins got pwned". he then became a facefag and started writing the "grey mirror" substack.
nick land wrote "the dark enlightenment" as a fanboy, but moldbug doesnt even know who nick is, he revealed once from a fan question on the michael malice show.
>>678162>state capitalism.Capitalism needs the bourgeoisie to exist. State capitalism is when the bourgeoisie control the state ran economy.
On the other hand, if workers control the state and that state controls the economy then that isn't state capitalism it's socialism (socialism being the stage between capitalism and communism).
>>678162>thats not true at all. a bigger business means bigger waste, since they can afford it.Yes. Bigger businesses produce bigger wastes, but that does not in any way interfere with the stature of their productivity compared to the small businesses ( output per given time )
>in an unregulated market, big business wouldnt have subsidies to keep themselves afloat. its weird seeing "marxists" fail to recognise the decline of profit for larger amounts of capital employed.Those subsidies as a keyneysian mediation actually serves as an anti-crisis mechanism, pumping artifical profit rates when the capital enters into periods of low profitting, that otherwise may arrest production as whole to keep itself afloat.
Albeit it might only slow down the inevitable, accounting the increase of cost of living worldwide while production grows more efficient.
But idk if you think that small businesses are more crisis-proof than the big businesses, I would expect it to be vice versa.
>>678171>Bigger businesses produce bigger wastesright, so they are less efficient
>productivitythis is where its important to look at "sectors" of the economy. a sector like energy has a natural monopoly for example, since it deals in scarce and necessary resources. therefore, more capital will be invested into this sector. does this then mean that an oil company should start producing cars? no. that is a separate sector. also, what small companies are intefering with energy producers?
>But idk if you think that small businesses are more crisis-proof than the big businesses, I would expect it to be vice versa.the fall in profit should cause downsizing, which is the natural market activity. it doesnt destroy companies, it just reallocates resources to more efficient ends. basically, if profits ruled the market, there would be more unemployment, as marx notes. thats why small businesses are actually a necessary outgrowth of capital; to facilitate a medium. marx's prediction of complete monopoly is incorrect; there will always be the small businessman (the artisan or merchant).
>>678170What the difference between a slave commodity or feudal commodity? Modes of production, organization of labor power, etc.
Anyway commodity production is supposed to be temporary under socialism as it transitions to communism. Or as Marx puts it in Critique of the Gotha Programme :
<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emergesSocialism is still marked by capitalism. To expect a new society and communism to magically be created out of nothing while still fighting capitalists is ridiculous idealism.
>>678173so you cant answer the question?
what does socialist commodity production and profit look like?
>>678174>so you cant answer the question?I did answer your question.You just didn't like the answer because your question was about the modes of production but you meant something else.
>what does socialist commodity production and profit look like?Here's a nice little essay about it:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch03.htmTLDR It looks like if you got rid of the local bourgeoisie but still had to deal with other countries and the leftover social structures that were holding you back from achieving a higher phase communism.
Sorry Ultra, but your perfectly clean, perfectly formed communism will not just happen. You will have to deal with ambiguities as we change modes of production.
>>678175>i answered your questionno you didnt
>essay<Certain comrades affirm that the Party acted wrongly in preserving commodity production after it had assumed power and nationalized the means of production in our country. They consider that the Party should have banished commodity production there and then. In this connection they cite Engels, who says: "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". These comrades are profoundly mistaken.okay, so stalin thinks nationalising industry to create state capitalism supersedes engels. to clarify then, do you think china is socialist?
>>678172>right, so they are less efficientSmall business : 10 output in x time per person with 30% waste → 7 produced
Big business : 100 output in x time per person with 40% waste → 60 produced
Also, the waste rate % doesn't need to be more with the small business, 10% of 100 is still more than 20% of 10. And i think small businesses prob waste more in some instances since they mostly chase for local customers while big businesses being present in multiple markets, having better networks for feedbacks etc.
>the fall in profit should cause downsizing, which is the natural market activity. it doesnt destroy companies, it just reallocates resources to more efficient ends.All the less productive actors which are 'downsized' will be swept away with more productive actors who can pump out more into the markets with more goods who can maintain a steady rate of (general)-profit while the others are hurted more by it.
There are plenty of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws which try to prevent such stuff as I know ( with either actually forcing different companies to establish a co-monopoly or dividing them )
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_SystemJust like how Bell industries were a monopoly in tech(mainly telephone) industry before they were divided, because when the capital is big enough, it is able to invest in higher amounts for its self growth, which potential & capital small businesses lack.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Edison_patentsNo small business ever could compete Edison Company in patents back then..
And no small company would electrify the country in such scales, because less capital = less efficiency for most of the cases
As for downsizing ( which prob wouldn't happen when monopoly is more desirable ) and reallocation of resources to different ends, a big business in that field is more likely to dominate that end as well
Most small businesses are just doing unnecessary stuff with low productivity ( like restaurants, a communal kitchen with streamlined cooking equipment serving more people consumes less electricity and labor per plate ), they only profit because big businesses try keeping their prices as high as possible, since competition would ordinarily hurt both sides ( lowering the profit rate of both )
>>678178you are missing the point of why businesses are big in the first place. they are big because they are productive, not the other way round. thats why you cant just establish monopolies and expect productivity to follow. this is self-evident by the nature of market competition.
>There are plenty of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws which try to prevent such stuff as I knowso your communist policy would be to deregulate the claims a monopoly can have over an industry? the issue is that monopolies commonly extract revenues by rent, so sap up productive forces rather than generate them.
>And no small company would electrify the country in such scales, because less capital = less efficiency for most of the cases yes i agree, but money cant magically create productivity either. again, we have to reverse things. zuckerberg's billion-dollar rebranding has caused a severe lack of success. sometimes things are "too big to not fail", like a fat man tripping over a rock.
>Most small businesses are just doing unnecessary stuff with low productivitysmall businesses are typically converting raw resources into consumable commodities. they are middle-men between the public and big producers, as i have explained. a restaurant takes useless items and makes them useful.
>>678177>>2324119>no you didntCommodities are commodities no matter their mode of production. Not sure what the confusion is here.
>stalin thinks nationalising industry to create state capitalism supersedes Engels.Come on, you know that's not what he's saying. Don't just read the first couple of sentences at least see what he argues in this one section. USSR got rid of the bourgeoisie. That's what make it socialist not state capitalist.
>do you think china is socialist?No, they still have a bourgeoisie. However, the economic and political control exercised by the Communist Party is very good and keeps their bourgeoisie largely in check. The Chinese proles have benefited from it immensely at least. Unfortunately the Cold War, Khrushchevites, and Mao's mistakes really fucked the Communists over and set back actual socialism in the country.
>>678187>Commodities are commodities no matter their mode of production.yes, and all forms of commodity production entail a relationship of buyer and seller (use-value and value), and therefore a relationship of profit. i asked you what profit under socialism looks like, but you havent answered this.
>USSR got rid of the bourgeoisiehow? lenin regenerated them during the NEP in 1921. i wonder why socialism requires markets to grow its economy? 🤔
>china is not socialist but the USSR wasso socialism doesnt work?
>>678190When socialists deal with outside countries they will buy and sell things to each other. Won't disappear until the entire world economy is socialist and integrated together.
>lenin regenerated them during the NEP in 1921Ended in 1928.
>i wonder why socialism requires markets to grow its economy?Markets are an organizing tool. They have their use but are not ideal.
>so socialism doesnt work?It worked for decades in the USSR/Eastern Block. But it needs political will to be sustained or it will fall back to capitalism.
>>678200>the USSR didnt "fall back" into capitalismSo the dissolution of USSR and the 1990s capitalist immiseration didn't happen in your mind.
>it progressed into capitalism from its feudal originsWith no bourgeoisie? How is that capitalism?
>>678210The economy changed. Housing is a speculative investment, not something people use to live in anymore. This is simply the material reality of today.
Appreciation on the value of assets is exploitation. It's no different than making money from hoarding. I suppose you might not use your house as leverage on investments but that's your stupidity.
And sure. Being petty-bourgeoisie is more convenient for you. It's still petty-bourgeois.
>>678219>>either you are a debt slave to landlords or you are petty bourgeoisCorrect
>why wouldnt everyone want to be petty bourgeois in this case? sounds much better than being "proletarianised". >fuck wage slavery.The march of history does not care about your feelings. Homeownership is a petty-bourgeois delusion which will melt away. It's historically inevitable that the price of productive commodities rises higher than commodities purely for consumption as efficiencies of scale lead to bulkier and bulkier MoP. The gay lifestyle with bathhouses, laundromats, cheap diners and so on is the future. Private plumbing is a reactionary step backwards.
>>678214>yesObjectively wrong. GDP dropped 50% and average life expectancy dropped over 5 years and took 20 years to get back to normal.
>destiny of the USSRDestiny is a fantasy trope and USSR had plenty of chances to turn the situation around. Nazis killing millions of workers and decimating it's domestic economy hurt it out the gate. But Khrushchev's market stupidity, failed foreign policy of Peaceful Coexistence, alienation of the Chinese communists, Brezhnevite complacency, Gorbachev's market liberalization, giving the nationalists to much freedom lead to it becoming capitalist.
Looking at it's history the two biggest mistakes was reliance on markets and nationalism. Get rid of these and the world will reach communism.
>>678281Meet
>>678282The class traitors must be extinguished anyway possible. In the imperial core, class traitor temptations have been deliberately cultivated in the form of "whiteness." First, the white settlers were given first dibs on the land claims to become small porkies. Second, whiteness was shifted over to a strategy of redlining and cheap credit for the whites to get access to the white suburbs which were deliberately constructed as a racist trick to keep them invested in the system. They also subverted organized labor molding the labor aristocracy into whiteness. Around about the 1970s they wanted to offshore the jobs, so they created a new labor aristocracy of (often white) credentialed professionals. But the system of cheap credit is falling apart. The whole white suburban lifestyle is a trick to keep white people wishing they were bourgeoisie.
>>678287>>no toxic waste in the river isnt a communist demandLMFAO did you think this post was smart in any way whatsoever
faggots her are utterly incapable of critical analysis, only appeals to vibes
>>678291idgaf about settler theory
>>678299i dont care about lenin or retards who take sloganeering seriously and literally devoid of any context whatsoever
>>678328>labor aristocracysay middle class like a normal person faggot
>>678162>a bigger business means bigger waste, since they can afford it>>678171>but that does not in any way interfere with the stature of their productivity compared to the small businesses If only you knew how bad things outside the imperial core really are:
<This paper [about the Great Famine] explores how Marx conceptualised the presence of soil exhaustion within the first half of nineteenth century Ireland. It is a period of Irish history, according to Marx, that was itself divided by two stages of colonial domination. What determined soil depletion in the first period (1800-1846) were the excessive demands of the white crop rotation regime which had to operate under the social process of rackrenting. And this rental system was itself determined by the dominant position held by the colonial landowning elite. Maintaining the soil condition involved the tenantry, both peasants and cottiers, attempting to replace the traded (and therefore lost) nutrients to the Irish soil without adequate capital investments in improvements of the soil. This colonial rental regime came to its end with the occurrence of the potato blight in 1846 and the subsequent Famine. <The new emerging stage of the colonial process (1846-1867 onwards) was what Marx titled ‘Clearing the estate of Ireland’, where the landlords ‘cleared’ their estates of the small peasantry and the cottiers. And in eliminating the peasant restorers of the soil’s fertility, soil exhaustion occurred in the Post-famine period. Marx therefore highlights how the soil of the colonised can itself be colonised by that same process.>‘Man is distinguished from all other animals by the limitless and flexible nature of his needs. But it is equally true that no animal is able to restrict his needs to the same unbelievable degree as to reduce the conditions of his life to the absolute minimum. In a word, there is no animal with the same talent for ‘Irishing’ himself’ (Marx, Capital, vol.1 Appendix: 1068).https://www.irishmetabolicrifts.com/ >>678299You realize the "bread" part of that slogan refers to the decree on wages, right? And that the USSR doing something doesn't make it automatically communist either? Or that many of those degrees were meant to appease the peasantry?
Fucking retarded pseuds everywhere on this shithole.
>>678245>>678273>>678299Rising rent impacts the proletariat too, but as classist communists, you don't suggest the Proletariat fight for affordable housing. Instead, you push for higher wages in their workplaces, which is the direct class struggle against capitalism and capitalists, who can then afford the rent. Capitalists put pressure on landlords to reduce rent by increasing wages. The concept of tenant as a class doesn't even exist, only the Proletariat exists. Communists focus on class struggle in a way that directly challenges capitalism. Tenant includes people from all different classes.
Choose the option where the Proletariat directly combats capitalism by advocating for higher wages to afford rent, or opt to fight against landlords which contributes absolutely nothing to class consciousness and association.
>>678351>Choose the option where the Proletariat directly combats capitalism by advocating for higher wageshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf
<These few hints will suffice to show that the very development of modern industry must progressively turn the scale in favour of the capitalist against the working man, and that consequently the general tendency of capitalistic production is not to raise, but to sink the average standard of wages, or to push the value of labour more or less to its minimum limit. Such being the tendency of things in this system, is this saying that the working class ought to renounce their resistance against the encroachments of capital, and abandon their attempts at making the best of the occasional chances for their temporary improvement? If they did, they would be degraded to one level mass of broken wretches past salvation. I think I have shown that their struggles for the standard of wages are incidents inseparable from the whole wages system, that in 99 cases out of 100 their efforts at raising wages are only efforts at maintaining the given value of labour, and that the necessity of debating their price with the capitalist is inherent to their condition of having to sell themselves as commodities. By cowardly giving way in their everyday conflict with capital, they would certainly disqualify themselves for the initiating of any larger movement. At the same time, and quite apart from the general servitude involved in the wages system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. 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!" >>678384uygha quotes marx and doesnt even understand it LMAO
fighting for better wages is not good because wages might increase but because the fighting itself leads proletarians in associating with each other and furthering their own consciousness about capital as a whole
>>678383>want to endlessly fight and moralize over who gets to be considered a proletarianyeah i wonder why communists want to analyze what demands are proletarian and work and which ones are a waste of time or even worse, crossclass bullshit
youre the only retarded FAGGOT here even bringing up morals into the question. this is surprisingly one of the few threads where people are keeping a level head over it
>>678350I am literally arguing for the exact opposite of redistributing property. I am arguing for accelerating the concentration of housing in the hands of a few.
In addition, we should embrace food, grocery and laundry delivery services. The private household traps women in the role of domestic servant. The socialization of domestic labor will lead to a more unified proletariat, and is a real way of fighting against the sexism which divides the labor movement.
Literally, the whole thread I have been arguing that we need to fight against the well-funded and active petty-bourgeois reactionaries who want to make the proles live like tiny porkies.
Unique IPs: 31