[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/siberia/ - Off-topic

"No chin, no right to speak."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


File: 1780799237220.png (139.03 KB, 457x550, Bernkastel4.png)

 

Marxism and libertarianism aren't that different actually. The difference is that a Marxist has a fetish for labor and a lolbert doesn't.
Both have the core of self-ownership principle. Everyone controls their body, hence they are entitled to it. A person can build a homestead. It will make the homestead theirs. Lolberts wouldn't mind if you paid some dudes and told them to help you build the homestead. But Marxists would start to seethe. I can't get the reason why.
Can you guys explain it to me? Why labor cannot be fully sold? The prole and the capitalist consent. If the prole cannot consent, it rather says that there must be circumstances in which they are able to consent, which are not only full seizing of the means of production.

>>790717
What are you going to build that homestead with?
Everything sourced, like the materials, nails, tools, etc, come from other men working, so it isn't wholly yours.
Man isn't an island.

"Consent" is a moral term irrelevant to Marxism. Libertarians (including left-libertarians and anarchists) arbitrarily elevate it to the ultimate standard according to which everything must be judged. I "consent" to being exploited by my boss because it's better to do so than to not have a job and not get paid. Even if the fact that I have no reasonable alternative didn't greatly diminish the meaning attached to "consent": so what? I would still prefer to live in a society where I don't get exploited, which is impossible if capitalists control the means of production. I would also prefer to live in a society where power is not concentrated among a few idiots and assholes who act unchecked and contrary to my interests, whether those idiots and assholes are business owners or their lackeys in the state.

>>790720
>so it isn't wholly yours
I bought it. It's mine. Workers sold their labor, I bought the result. Where the fuck was it wronged?

>>790726
How did you buy it? with money? a standard of value that a state uses.

>>790722
>"Consent" is a moral term irrelevant to Marxism
Ethics and morality are hell ass relevant for Marxism. These things are the core of any political philosophy, one of which is Marxism.

>>790728
I could buy it with money or without it. It doesn't change anything anyways.

>>790730
It does.
If you want to buy property or use any standard of currency, it leads to a state to deal with the justice of property distribution and standardization of measures… a lolbert hates that stuff, but that is how it happens… inevitably two people will have overlapping claims of their property and will say, "this is mine", and another, "no it's mine!", so inherently the maintenance of these things requires provisions that a state would naturally work upon.

>>790722
>I "consent" to being exploited by my boss because it's better to do so than to not have a job and not get paid. Even if the fact that I have no reasonable alternative didn't greatly diminish the meaning attached to "consent"
Btw, what you described is exactly lack of consent. You'd fucking starve to death homeless if you didn't get the money you get working for a capitalist.

>>790732
No, it doesn't change >>790726

>>790734
First, the lolbert was wronged, because then he became a statist.

>>790735
Ancaps aren't the whole of libertarianism

>>790737
I mean, it involves your consent, yes, to government, so why make a fuss about government overreach and having your rights depend on the government – that is basically what leftists are complaining about, except it is private property owners as masters of their private government.
Technically, everyone "consents" to government even in the dubious way you mention here >>790722 that you consent to it or else they could be punished for it.

>>790738
Are you AI

>>790739
It's the same scenario, but where the lolbert stammers.
Lolbert wants limited government–the leftist wants to limit his employer's overreach.

>>790729
>Ethics and morality are hell ass relevant for Marxism
They are absolutely not, you fundamentally misunderstand Marxism.

File: 1780803919166.jpg (97.55 KB, 534x604, 16242131587830.jpg)

>>790740
D'you wanna be my fren

>>790741
>>Both have the core of self-ownership principle
Why isn't the Marxian self-ownership an ethical principle then

>>790747
Because Marxism does not say anything like "denial of self-ownership is morally wrong". Marxism as a theory (not as every idea ever expressed by Karl Marx in letters, private conversations or while taking a shower) does not assign moral status to behavior or states of affairs. A moralistic theory of socialism, like left-anarchists often engage in, might argue that capitalism is morally wrong because private ownership is always illegitimate, or because people in it lack the ability to consent or to own themselves as you stipulate.
It's a fundamental trait of Marxism that it does not do this. Marxism doesn't even say that capitalism is illegitimate; in fact, it says the opposite: it says that capitalism is necessary. What Marxism presents is a theory of society and history. It follows from that theory that the abolition of capitalism is in the self-interest of the vast, vast majority of people who have ever lived under capitalism. But to say that something is in someone's self-interest is not a moral claim. Even to say that "you should abolish capitalism" is not necessarily a moral claim, in the same way that saying to your friend "you should play Elden Ring" is not saying "it would be morally correct/necessary for you to play Elden Ring"
The reason this is not a pedantic point to make is that whether something is consensual, legitimate, or anything else becomes irrelevant. That there might be ways to do capitalism "consensually" or "legitimately" or etc. does not refute or weaken the theory. So attempts to defend the potential or actual morality of capitalism are not attacks on Marxism.

File: 1780805198594.gif (479.53 KB, 493x342, 1315009815396.gif)

>this ideology and this critique of ideology are similar
uhhhhh try again?


>>790753
Two thousand eight was about twenty years ago

>>790750
>Because Marxism does not say anything like "denial of self-ownership is morally wrong"
Yes, it does. The part about exploitation of workers' labor isn't possible in any other case. Alienation is impossible. All of fucking early Marx gets the fuck out.

>>790763
Exploitation in Marxism is a technical term that refers to the capitalist taking ownership of surplus value. This also happens in communism (part of personal labor product taken to satisfy societal needs). The term has no moral dimension to it. It is in the self interest of workers under capitalism to reduce exploitation to improve their living standards, and at the same time, it's important to make workers realize that exploitation cannot be totally abolished and therefore it's necessary to abolish the specific relations of production of capitalism to organize this exploitation (distribution of social product) in a direct, conscious and rational manner.

>>790763
Alienation is also a self-interest thing rather than moralism. Most people don't want to be alienated from their work and the product of their work.

You need to understand what the criticism of morality actually is. "Morals" don't really exist as an independent physical thing outside the human mind. What we call morals are physically, emotional reactions or manmade societal guidelines. So a scientific analysis does not simply accept morals as they are, but picks them apart to see why they originated and what they're really about.

By criticising morality we also criticize the conditions that created such moral thinking in the first place. Recognising the nature of morality also does not mean that we tell people to deny their human desires and self interests, since such an assertion would also be a moral assertion.

What we are basically doing is descending from talking in the ideal plane about philosophy and morality, down to the material plane of biological humans and their behaviour.

>>790773
>This also happens in communism
Nope. Communism is about free creative labor. 'Free' means you can do nothing instead of creative labor if you wish. It's kinda 101 of Marxism.

>Exploitation in Marxism is a technical term that refers to the capitalist taking ownership of surplus value

<of the worker, which is worker's interest
'Of the worker' is the moment where the self-ownership appears. Things as they are themselves don't create any entitlements or obligations about what we should do about them. Hume's guillotine, you know.

>self interest of workers

There is no interest outside of individuals. Workers as the sociological group have many interests. For example, I don't think that most of the working people of Alabama mind lynching some n*s and f**s. This is not the thing you want. You'd call this reactionary. Some interests are okay to accomplish, some others are not. One has to have a criterion from outside to do this. This is yet another normative/ethical claim.

>>790780
Dude, I already get you are in favor of scientism. Just stop.


File: 1780817647178-0.png (691.59 KB, 779x643, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1780817647178-1.png (315.18 KB, 1781x741, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1780817647178-2.png (701.02 KB, 800x861, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1780817647178-3.png (1.35 MB, 1080x2237, ClipboardImage.png)

>>790717
> Can you guys explain it to me? Why labor cannot be fully sold? The prole and the capitalist consent.
This is addressed and capital volume 1. Capitalists use money, to buy commodities, to make more money than they initially started out with. A worker sells a commodity, like their labor-power, to get money, a wage, to buy things they need like housing, food, shelter, water. A worker uses money for its original intended purpose: to buy things of equal value. A capitalist uses money to make more money.

The capitalist does not just want a use value. He wants a commodity to sell. And he wants that commodity to have more value than the things he paid for. He wants surplus value. So we must look at work as a value creating process. Let us take an example of spinning yarn. The capitalist buys ten pounds of cotton for ten shillings. He also uses up a spindle worth two shillings. That is twelve shillings of value already in the product. The worker spins for six hours. Six hours of labor add three shillings of value. So the yarn is worth fifteen shillings. But the capitalist paid three shillings for the worker's day of labor power. The worker only needed six hours to produce that three shillings worth of value. But the worker can work twelve hours. So the capitalist makes the worker work twelve hours. In twelve hours, the worker spins twenty pounds of cotton. The cotton costs twenty shillings. The spindle wear is four shillings. That is twenty four shillings of old value. The worker adds twelve hours of labor, which is worth six shillings. The total value is thirty shillings. But the capitalist only advanced twenty seven shillings. He made three shillings of surplus value. The trick worked. The worker gave more labor time than he was paid for. That extra labor is surplus value. The capitalist bought labor power at its value and used it to create more value. That is how money turns into capital. The labor process makes use values. The valorization process makes value. When the labor process goes past the point of replacing the value of labor power, it becomes a surplus value process. Skilled labor creates more value per hour than unskilled labor, but the same rule holds. The worker always creates more value than he costs.

Marx points out that a person doesn't sell their labor, they sell their capacity to labor for a period of time, as a commodity. He calls this commodity "labor power" to distinguish it from labor.

Marx points out that, for labor power to be sold as a commodity, two things must be true. First, the worker must be free to sell his own labor power. He can sell it only for a limited time. If he sold it forever, he would become a slave. Second, the worker must have no other commodity to sell. He has no tools, no raw materials, and no means of living except his own labor power. This is the part of Marx's argument people like to ignore because people in the developed world are very rarely like this anymore. He must sell his labor power to live. This relation does not come from nature. It comes from a long history. Capital needs free workers in this double sense.

Labor power has a value like any other commodity. Its value is the labor time needed to produce it. Producing labor power means keeping the worker alive. The worker needs food, clothes, shelter, and fuel. These things cost a certain amount of labor time. The value of labor power also includes the cost of raising children to replace workers, since otherwise capitalism would die out without workers. It may also include the cost of training for skilled work. The value of labor power changes if the cost of living changes. There is a lowest possible value. It is the value of the bare minimum needed to stay alive. If wages fall below that, labor power is not properly maintained.

The use of labor power is different from its sale. The worker agrees to work, but he gets paid later, often at the end of the week. So the worker gives credit to the capitalist. If the capitalist goes bankrupt, the worker may lose his wages. But for our study, we can assume the worker gets paid right away.

The capitalist buys labor power to use it. Using labor power means making the worker work. The worker makes a useful thing, a use value. The capitalist does not change the basic nature of work. He just controls it. Work is a process between man and nature. Man moves his body to change natural things into things he needs. While working, he also changes himself. What makes human work special is that the worker first imagines the thing in his head. Then he builds it. A bee builds a honeycomb, but the bee cannot picture it first. The worker can. The worker must pay close attention to his task. The key parts of work are the worker himself, the thing he works on, and his tools. The earth gives us the first things to work on, natural resources, like fish and trees. If a natural resources has already been worked on before, i.e. extracted, we call it raw material. A tool is something the worker puts between himself and the thing he works on. Tools can be simple like stones or complex like machines. The tools people use tell us about their time period. The worker uses up the raw material and wears down his tools. The product is a new use value. The worker's labor power disappears into the product. The product now belongs to the capitalist, not the worker. The capitalist makes sure the worker does not waste anything.


Unique IPs: 7

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]