Reminder that capitalism is about estranging labor from the value of what they produce. The history is absolutely clear on this.
Karl Marx was right about everything.
Reminder that capitalism is about estranging labor from the value of what they produce. The history is absolutely clear on this.
Karl Marx was right about everything.
Other urls found in this thread:
How do you define the value of a product?
actually modern capitalism doesn't even involve much labor, mostly speculation.
>fast moving towards a post labor society.
socially necessary labor time
i bet you whine about the "totalitarian regressive left" inbetween making such statements, but i'll tell you why. the right wingers on this board are entirely ignorant of history and philosophy, they come here to shitpost. marx is both history AND philosophy, so he's pertinent and on-topic.
Marx was wrong about how society and civilizations actually develop.
>actually modern capitalism doesn't even involve much labor, mostly speculation.
pic related. maybe there's not much labor necessary in western societies, but there's plenty of global labor who are estranged even further from the value of their products.
I'm fine with Marxposting tbqh, at least he doesn't have a smug face like Sam Harris or John Green
top kek can Marxists make a single argument that isn't a strawman?
>make a thread about Marx
>right-wingers flood and start shitposting
What is it about Marx that makes right-wingers so fucking hysterical?
I made that exact post. What's a "straw man" about it? Marx got paid by Engels for his service because Engels liked it that much. That's a capitalist (purported) wet dream.
>Reminder that capitalism is about estranging labor from the value of what they produce.
>let me OBJECTIVELY assess what happens in the world with intangible metaphysical axioms that can be neither proven nor refuted
Karl Popper was right about Marxism when he said it's a kooky unfalsifiable crap that just pretends to be scientific.
You are putting words into their mouth.
Read volume 3 regarding unproductive labour and finance capital.
To be fair, he's a thinker that's entirely antithetical to their beliefs.
even in China automation is improving. there's not enough work to go around and the state/private sector often over-employ. plus the Chinese themselves are increasingly becoming a consumption and speculation society.
Capitalism isn't 'about' anything. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.
>Reminder that capitalism is about estranging labor from the value of what they produce. The history is absolutely clear on this.
This doesn't establish the moral circumstances of alienation of value, nor does it establish that capitalism inevitably results in crises ("recessions").
Scientific meant something different at that point. It was "scientific" in that it involved actual analysis of social and economic relations, rather than hinging on an ideological or moralistic premise.
Preferring Popper's metaphysics to any other metaphysics doesn't make Popper correct. Might also want to read Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend on the limits of "falsifiability" as an abstract epistemological claim and as an actual social force in science as a human practice.
>You are putting words into their mouth.
The criticism is that Marx "never had a job". I'm pointing out that in any capitalist understanding of markets, he actually did. They just interpret events in a specific way, on purpose, to make Marx look bad. It's just biased slander.
Yes, and that's why labor is shifting away from China again. Capitalists will always find the cheapest workers to exploit.
Maxism breaks down in an economy of intangible values....ie all modern economies.
Or Quine, who took Popper's falsifiability criteria of science and showed they don't pass their own tests, making Popper a dogmatic anti-Marxist just as much as Marx is dogmatic himself.
Stirner did get blasted by Marx pretty damn hard.
>in an economy of intangible values
It looks like you misread Volume 1 on what the commodity is. It isn't a physical object, it is a use (ie: sale) and a value (ie: embodied sold socially necessary labour).
"Intangible" commodies are merely the result of higher OCCs, and thus experience super-profits relative to the average rate of profit AND require less labour causing the crisis of realisation to become more extensive.
Nice one. Hypocrisy isn't the be all and end all of argument, but it is for Popper's argument because it demands anti-hypocritical argumentation.
>Stirner did get blasted by Marx pretty damn hard.
Wasn't Marx's response mostly just a string of insults that never actually attacked the substance of Stirner's argument?
>Wasn't Marx's response mostly just a string of insults
Yes, but you'll never get a Marxist shitposter to admit it.
You're presenting a false dichotomy of invective and argumentation. Yes, Marx was an a grade shitposter when it came to calling people cunts. But, yes, Marx also demolished Stirner's egoism.
Labor wouldn't be employed in the first place without capitalists.
>But, yes, Marx also demolished Stirner's egoism.
How so? Also, I never presented such a dichotomy, you schmuck. I never said a string of insults was incapable of attacking the substance of argument, just that his did not.
2016 after l.v. mises and you still talkin bout this guy
wake up nigga
ikr, there's an Anti-fascist thread going on right now and I saw multiple Marx-related threads before. I guess cause it's Friday night in the U.S. and all the Kiddies don't have school tomorrow.
Not respected by economists of any importance, google "neoclassical economics faults"
By historicising the ideal.
>Marx also demolished Stirner's egoism
No, Stirner's egoism demolished Marx.
Seriously you have to turn a blind eye to history to have beliefs like this.
It is amazing indeed! I'll never again doubt the word of Marx, prophet of the communal faith, so well did you explain the two great points of jack and shit.
He refuted socialist economy, it doesn't matter if you respect him or not.
Maybe you should consider switching to they have a strong position on engineers.
Labour wouldn't be employed in the first place without capital. Human effort only takes on the form of wage labour in relation to capital. Try reading some history of work.
Have either of you two read his critique? It raises some good points but also sublated quite a bit. Stirner and Marx are not opposites, they are close in many ways.
Estranged labor is the cost of efficiency, Capitalism is too competitively advantageous not to exist. For all of Marx's so called focus on the big picture, he completely failed to look at the national competitiveness that forces countries into industrialization and Capitalism. Anarchy is impossible, centralized powers are inevitable, and so countries that don't adopt Capitalism will be pushed aside by those that do. Existence isn't a right, it must be earned.
The labor theory of value is a clunky economic system that Marx wrote for the sole purpose of polemicizing against Capital. It doesn't add anything economic, it only elevates the role of labor and completely forgets the spontaneous organization of Capital viz. the invisible hand.
Marx made some interesting contributions, but the main body of his work is complete and utter shit
In the process. So far it seems to lack substance, and paints Marx a bit... spergy.
>this is what capitalists really believe
It is what Marxists believe. It is what social democrats believe. It is what anarchists believe.
Useful human activity is not subsumed by the category labour except in capitalist society.
>Guys peasants used to farm autonomously so our hyper-complex society can be horizontal as well.
Yeah totally bro, democratize the means of production what could go wrong
GOMMIES GET OUT
The distinction between someone who's a laborer and who's a capitalist is mostly arbitrary.
Is an employee who owns stock in the company he works for considered a capitalist? At what point does the person become a capitalist or a laborer? Are CEO's part of labor in public companies even though they have ample power but don't own much stock compared to stockholders?
And Stirner is not?
Btw the fundamental criticism of Stirner is, regardless of what you consider "yours", the world still works in certain material ways and you'll be prevented from acting on that belief. It doesn't free you from material constraints.
It's impossible to refute cuz it's correct.
>For all of Marx's so called focus on the big picture, he completely failed to look at the national competitiveness that forces countries into industrialization and Capitalism.
Except in his journalism on China, or in Capital.
>The labor theory of value is a clunky economic system that Marx wrote
Think you mean Smith and Ricardo. Marxian LTV is predicated on social necessity and actual realisation. Also it isn't an economic system, it is an analysis of capital, not just a polemic.
>it only elevates the role of labor[sic]
I see you've not read Volumes 2 or 3.
>At what point does the person become a capitalist or a laborer?
Power to hire & fire (IWW)
>And Stirner is not?
Not particularly. He doesn't spend most of his book nitpicking the minutiae of the language of the things he critiques.
>Btw the fundamental criticism of Stirner is, regardless of what you consider "yours", the world still works in certain material ways and you'll be prevented from acting on that belief. It doesn't free you from material constraints.
But that's not really a criticism of Stirner, as there's nothing within the Ego and Its Own that would say differently. When he suggests slaves recognize the ownership of themselves they already possess, it doesn't mean that they're suddenly free from the whips and chains they've been subjected to.
The head of HR decides weather to fire or hire employees. Yet he is an employee himself who owns no stock in the business and thus does not own the means of production and can be fired by his senior manager, who can also be fired.
Indeed even in partnerships, the board can vote to strip a "owners" of all firing and hiring decisions.
>Except in his journalism on China, or in Capital.
If he admits that Capital is competitively necessary, then under what circumstances will socialism rise up? All it takes is one militaristic country to fuck up the global revolution.
>I see you've not read Volumes 2 or 3
Stop name dropping chapters; you've done this repeatedly throughout the thread, it makes you sound like an arrogant 17 year old. If you want to have a conversation, reply with information instead of smarmy bullshit.
it's not.. hypocrisy.. it's a contradiction
>Not particularly. He doesn't spend most of his book nitpicking the minutiae of the language of the things he critiques.
his work isn't a criticism of that sort. Marx doesn't nitpick when he critiques culture either
>But that's not really a criticism of Stirner, as there's nothing within the Ego and Its Own that would say differently.
Probably, I believe Stirner and Marx are closer than Marx realized. But it is absolutely true that Stirner failed to address the material side of anything
>But it is absolutely true that Stirner failed to address the material side of anything
Why should he? His book was about addressing how you interact with the world around you, a matter which is entirely ideological.
>his work isn't a criticism of that sort. Marx
doesn't nitpick when he critiques culture either
From what I've read so far, Marx has been mostly just picking at Stirner's odd choice of language.
>Yet he is an employee himself who owns no stock in the business and thus does not own the means of production and can be fired by his senior manager, who can also be fired.
Ownership isn't formal, it is control. It is like you've not done any reading at all in the area you're attempting to talk about. Maybe that's because you've not done any reading at all in the area you're attempting to talk about.
>Every country that has ever been successful has been capitalist.
I just laugh every time people bring up Marx, despite all the obvious evidence which is counter to his theories, edgy contrarian teenagers still try to talk about him like he's worth anyone's time.
>If he admits that Capital is competitively necessary, then under what circumstances will socialism rise up?
When the crisis of capital causes it to be less competitive than free production by labour in its own sublation. For example, GNU is sufficiently competitive to have eliminated almost all private Unix toolsets. GNU is zero priced and made by voluntary labour. In the field of Unix toolsets, socialism has triumphed over capitalism by out competing it.
You're the one attempting to critique Marx without having read him. Marx spends the majority of the three volumes discussing the limits and potentials of entrepreneurial function. Labour, in Capital, appears SOLELY as the object of Capital's genius.
YOUR ATTEMPTED CRITIQUE OF MARX COULDN'T HAVE BEEN MORE WRONG, CHIEFLY BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T READ MARX AND PRODUCED A STRAWMAN FROM YOUR OWN ARSEHOLE.
Control that can be stripped away at any moment, by fellow employees no less. Is that really control when its not absolute? Its merely borrowed power by the consent of others.
Take for example this. en.wikipedia.org
Every person that owns stock in this company, and thus owns part of the means of production, for this company is an employee that can be fired.
Have you ever met someone who described themselves as a 'Marxist' or fan of communism who was over the age of 24 and not a student?
Personally, when I look at society, I see Marxist view far more relevant to how the real world works, than modern marginal theory.
Marginal price formations is fucking weird because studies upon studies have shown in the real world, it's a load of fucking bullshit, but it's still considered the core of mainstream economic theory.
>Is that really control when its not absolute?
You answer yourself.
>From what I've read so far, Marx has been mostly just picking at Stirner's odd choice of language.
then you haven't read very far.
a man after my own heart
Sounds to me that the one who should be doing reading is you.
The complexities of the modern corporate world cannot be placed in the black and white schema that was prevalent during Marx's time: workers who just owned their own labor, and capitalists who just owned the means of production.
The world has gotten way more gray.
>>Every country that has ever been successful has been capitalist.
Not true prima facie.
No it hasn't, it's gotten larger but the fundamentals are still right there screaming at you.
Then why can I find plenty of examples where your cutoff point "the power of hired and fired" does not indicate ownership of the means of production?
So Marx treats control over the means of production in a subtle and complex way, and this is too black and white for you.
>Capital will lose because capital will have a crisis that causes it to lose. Here's one exceptional example to prove this.
Circular, shit argument. You make some strong assertions, with little to no evidence. Reading Marx biblically will do that.
Read Capital and all Marx does is describe how Capitalists exploit labor, he never outright compliments the ingenuity of Capitalism.
You keep yelling out things like strawman, but you fail to explain why, and your answers to my questions are flimsy at best. Logical fallacies and a photographic memory of Capital won't get you far, it seems
Don't quote if you mangle the fucking quote idiot.
The power to hire and fire adequately explains the relationship. If you want more, start with Lukacs' History and Class-consciousness.
Capitalism will keep on going because the world powers are invested in it. Even communist countries.
That said, it might break down because of automation when enough low skilled people are put out of work because of advances in technology. Not everyone can be robot engineers.
Then again... The powers that be might just put all the unemployed into camps.
>Karl Popper was right about Marxism when he said it's a kooky unfalsifiable crap that just pretends to be scientific.
le unfalsifiable meme
>The power to hire and fire adequately explains the relationship.
It does not. I just gave you an example where the power to hire and fire does not indicate a person being a capitalist.
Unless you want to say CEOs and HR managers are not employees.
>Circular, shit argument.
A circular argument treats its terms as conclusions. My argument regarding Marx's supposition for the conditions for socialism referenced a concrete economic example. If you'd like another example, the installed base of Linux on smart devices, such as the Galaxy, is indicative of its success as a socialist production in out competing capitalist production.
>You make some strong assertions, with little to no evidence.
I gave you a solid fucking example. Pull in your rhetoric, because it makes you look fucking stupid when you're demonstrably wrong.
>he never outright compliments the ingenuity of Capitalism.
Volume 1, Chapter 31, "The governor-General took part in this private traffic. His favourites received contracts under conditions whereby they, cleverer than the alchemists, made gold out of nothing. Great fortunes sprang up like mushrooms in a day; primitive accumulation went on without the advance of a shilling."
And so on. Please, prove yourself wrong some more.
CEOs and HR managers aren't wage labourers.
"capitalism is inevitable" meme
>If you'd like another example, the installed base of Linux on smart devices, such as the Galaxy, is indicative of its success as a socialist production in out competing capitalist production.
generally open-source developers are left-wing as fuck, too.
>Aren't wage laborers
Most HR managers get most of the income from wage labor. They get paid a salary plus a bonus for performance with some getting stock options, but not all, and is certainly not large enough to say that they "own" the company. CEOs are the same, but they get more stock options. Some are majority stock holders, others are not.
Again, you're resorting to formalism rather than the substantive relationship. HR managers, like police, are paid as the hangers on and attendants of capital. You are calling the Earl's household troops members of the 3rd estate.
So that means that if I own 30% of GE stock I'm not a capitalist? Cool.
>Volume 1, Chapter 31
Lets look at that in its broader context faggot.
>Volume 1, Chapter 31, "The officials themselves fixed the price and plundered the unfortunate Hindus at will. The Governor General...(Your bullshit cherry picked quote goes here) ...primitive accumulation went on without the advance of a schilling."
So no, faggot, he's not complimenting capital he's talking shit about government enforced monopolies, in this case the East India Company. And Primitive accumulation is the unfair accumulation of wealth through force, not Capitalism; so no, still a polemic.
Fucking faggot Marxists I don't know why I bother.
Doesn't appear in Marx.
The long term question is that if man ever makes super intelligent AI, is if the AI will reject capitalism?
I mean in theory, is machines could just make shit for basically no cost, then why sell things.
I mean it might stop seeing the point of paying shareholders if it is doing all the work from resource extraction to the final product.
I'll take that as a surrender. Good talking to you, sophist.
You're forgetting something.
In corporations such as Publix. There is no Earl.
You're making it sound that capital is its own breathing living thing when its not.
And going back to the OP. The perception that capitalist don't work or earn their share of income is completely asinine. Given that we do not have perfect information or cost-less entry and exit into markets, an owner of capital in the classical sense has to be compensated for their risk taking and opportunity cost of time.
>babbys first bait
I'm sorry that you're incapable of reading texts.
>You're making it sound that capital is its own breathing living thing when its not.
Does Publix have the statutory obligation to maximise shareholder profit? If it does, then guess what: capital acts as though it is a living breathing thing through people.
>an owner of capital in the classical sense has to be compensated for their risk taking and opportunity cost of time.
Well, yes, or they won't sell their finance capital at the insufficient interest rate. I mean it is fucking Volume III.
God your forced ad-hominim tastes so good
>Does Publix have the statutory obligation to maximise shareholder profit?
Corporate officers and directors do have a fiduciary duty to shareholders though.
What do I have to study to understand what you guys are talking about?
If they've got a fiduciary duty to shareholders then they're obliged to maximise profit. The workers are "bossing" themselves through the CEO they "appoint" to fulfil their needs. The value form doesn't require a particular personality to fill the role of the capitalist. I mean this is in Marx from the 1850s for fucks sake.
There are plenty of ways to critique Marx, but you fucking have to read him first. Read Kołakowski ffs.
Then its people, not capital, who are ultimately responsible for it.
And there is no statuary obligation to maximize profits; there's barely any corporate acts of incorporation that has that. It is up to the board (which are employees) to consider what is in the best interest of the company (the employees in this case) which can include curtailing profits for some end such as getting rid of trans fat in their cookies.
I mean compare and contrast with workers coops who have a duty to supply quality food and drink to their members, completely different duty, even though most still involve wage labour.
>If they've got a fiduciary duty to shareholders then they're obliged to maximise profit.
No, you stupid faggot, that is not what fiduciary duty means. Literally all it means is that you must act in the best interests of the principal and not have any conflicts of interest.
So, for instance, if a CEO and board believed that not closing an unprofitable plant would be good for the firm in the long run, even if it is currently losing money, then they can keep it open, even though that's not "maximizing profit."
No, you stupid faggot, that is exactly what fiduciary duty means. It has been repeatedly interpreted by courts and accounting standards bodies to refer to maximisation of profits and that the only interest of the principle is the maximisation of profit.
>would be good for the firm in the long run
>that's not "maximizing profit."
You're aware of shareholder suits, right? If the board can't support that maintaining the plant will result in the court's ruling about what principle's interests are, they can be sued by the principle.
It gets even worse than that.
Many pharmaceutical companies deliberately take losses when they don't need to in order to give free drugs to patients. Like Vertex Pharmaceuticals and their cystic fibrosis drug. And no, they don't make up the cost somewhere else. They are taking stock losses and they have a terrible Q4 balance sheet.
Dude, you're talking to a CPA right now so pulling bullshit out of your ass about "accounting standards bodies" just makes you look like an idiot.
Basically cite something concrete or else fuck off.