Marx on Alienation

>If you're hiring a maid. You don't pay yourself for wiping your own ass. Wages are paid when there is a transaction between parties.

Made me kek. Is the question not referring to 'the housewife' though ?

Believing in Marxism (you have to believe in it) is like believing in a religion, no matter how many times it is refuted and no matter how many times it fails, it is always something wrong with reality or the fault of individuals who are bad-willing, it's never the theory itself that's wrong. Talking about alienation!

When has marxism "failed" and in which way were those failings related to marx theory?

>alienation
Are you taking a feminism class or something? The primary point of alienation is the separation of labor, from fruits of labor. There are lots of things tied into this, but the primary point is that labor does not lead directly to the fruits of one's labor. It leads to wages. The difference in value between the wages and the value of the product is the capitalist's profit.

Common property law fixes that. Otherwise, what you're proposing is that the husband pay the wife, which becomes taxable income, the wife then pays taxes, and the couple ends up with less money than it has before, simply because they performed a transaction. You said housework. A housewife implies a different relationship than employer-employee. If you think the husband-wife relationship is like employer-employee, then the wife doing housework is simply a maid. There's no distinction of housewife, because the distinction of housewife is not important now that you've established this is a employer-employee relationship.

Centrally planned economies failed. That's it. Even all the Austrians and shit were mostly arguing against centrally planned economies when they were arguing about socialism, and not workers controlling the means of production, and syndicates and co-ops and organized labor, if you bother to actually read what they write.

And even then, some degree of centralized planning is good, which is why we have big companies and corporations (although the Austrian will say this is because of government intervention). It's simply that there is the potential for competition and varying sizes of firms, in order to find the optimal size with optimal economies of scale.

It's a Marx module in a Philosophy semester.

Another developing nation reverts back to pre-industrial standards of living? Surely this could be the fault of any economic theory... Aaaaaand it's Marxism.

Throughout history walls always served to keep the people out. Socialism is the only system where the walls were designed to keep the people IN!

The things he's describing is the way all employees put more into their work than they get back in wages.

There is a reason that 'work to rule' strikes are effective.

Products are worth whatever they're sold for. So the labour that goes into them is worth one share of that, minus the cost of capital.

Of course, just having a basic income solves this problem. With basic income, every job pays what it's worth, no more, no less.

Wow really makes you think.

Marx is about the capitalist exploitation of workers. You can try extending it to other things, but anything else is though roughly based on some things Marx said.

Good contribution

>Centrally planned economies failed.

Not corporations.

Gold stars and little incentives, or m,aking work just bearable enough that you dont want to hang yourself, doesnt exactly say much to argue we are not alienated. If for agruments sake we were all born without the want for food and shelter, we had all the food and space we needed so there was no need for a wage, I doubt we would consider sitting in offices all day or breaking our backs to mine for motherboard ingredients.

>Of course, just having a basic income solves this problem. With basic income, every job pays what it's worth, no more, no less.
That's not true at all. It just means workers can strike indefinitely, which is a good thing, and likely to drive wages to market values and removes the need for minimum wages. It also encourages people working jobs that don't actually pay for their costs, which is a bad thing, and a distortion of markets, meaning there should actually be a regressive tax until the amount of the universal income is paid, then it should become progressive, because you want people actually working jobs that produce more than the basic income.

Which is why I said
>And even then, some degree of centralized planning is good, which is why we have big companies and corporations (although the Austrian will say this is because of government intervention). It's simply that there is the potential for competition and varying sizes of firms, in order to find the optimal size with optimal economies of scale.

Just go rob a bank or something and go to jail, since food and shelter seems to be all you want in life. I think most people are willing to work for more than that.

>>Should a Marxist describe capitalism as just?
Marx and moralism aren't compatible

>>Does the Marxist analysis of class oppression give a convincing account of women’s oppression?
Loaded question. What women's oppression

>>Should a Marxist support the idea of paying wages for housework?
Under capitalism yes. Bit of a silly question.

>That's not true at all. It just means workers can strike indefinitely, which is a good thing, and likely to drive wages to market values and removes the need for minimum wages.

They won't strike indefinitely, they'll work when they are made a good offer. There won't be such a thing as strikes, just quitting jobs that you don't like.

>It also encourages people working jobs that don't actually pay for their costs, which is a bad thing, and a distortion of markets, meaning there should actually be a regressive tax until the amount of the universal income is paid, then it should become progressive, because you want people actually working jobs that produce more than the basic income.

I don't want people actually working jobs, I want people to get access to time and stuff. Jobs are a means to an end, the objective should always be to get rid of mandatory jobs.

Corporations don't find optimum size, though. They grow as far as the state allows them. And yet they've lasted for decades without collapsing, despite centrally controlling most of the economy.

America's Communist Movement Owed a Lot to Jewish Support
myjewishlearning.com/history/Modern_History/1914-1948/American_Jewry_Between_the_Wars/Radical_Politics.shtml
Anti-Semitism
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm
>In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.
Bolshevik Propaganda
archive.org/stream/cu31924030480051/cu31924030480051_djvu.txt
>Senator Wolcott. Are they in favor of any particular religion?
>Mr. Huntington. Not the leaders of this movement themselves; no, sir. The leaders of the movement, I should say, are about two-thirds Russian Jews and perhaps one-sixth or more of some of the other nationalities, like the Letts or the Armenians. The assistant in the foreign office was an Armenian. Then there are the Georgians; that is, the so-called Gruzinians of the Caucasus, and the remaining number Slavs. The superiority of the Jews is due to their intellectual superiority, because the average Jew is so much better educated than the average Russian; and also, I think, to the fact that the Hebrew people have suffered so in the past in Russia that it has inevitably resulted in their cherishing a grudge which has been worked out by the movement.
Chinese Communism?
jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/chinese_communism.htm
Communism and the Jews
volokh.com/2011/10/29/communism-and-the-jews/

Communism was Jewish - Communism is Jewish
controversyofzion.info/communism_was_jewish.htm
Communism's Death Toll, and the Jewish Role in Bolshevism
youtube.com/watch?v=km6u4L1JsmY
A Jew in Mao's China
blogs.forward.com/the-arty-semite/159051/a-jew-in-maos-china/
Jews and Marxism - Socialism - Communism
come-and-hear.com/dilling/chapt11.html
The Jewish Bolshevik Commies
trutube.tv/video/1013/The-Jewish-Bolshevik-Commies
The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine
books.google.com/books?id=9QNuiuhPzzIC&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false
Jewish Communists
jewwatch.com/jew-communists.html
Jewish Founders of International Communism for the One World Order
jewwatch.com/jew-communists-founders.html
Jewish Pre-Eminence in the Political Left/Communism

>this shit again

general redpills
pastebin.com/MSvkCCRy

holohoax denial.
pastebin.com/Uc1EkvGZ

-love, /r9k/

>They won't strike indefinitely
Do you understand what the word can means?
>can
>be able to

It means employers can't simply wait for a strike to end, and employees don't have to feel coerced to work jobs to survive.

>they'll work when they are made a good offer
That's the point of striking, to get a good offer.

>There won't be such a thing as strikes, just quitting jobs that you don't like.
Based on nothing.

>I don't want people actually working jobs, I want people to get access to time and stuff. Jobs are a means to an end, the objective should always be to get rid of mandatory jobs.
You're not a Marxist, so you should shut up about Marx. You're just a filthy utopian socialist, which Marx wrote against. Marx is about anti exploitation. It's funny that for plebs, you have Bioshock for example, which people associate being entitled to the sweat of one's brow with objectivism, when it's actually a primary core value of Marxism as well. Marx thinks a worker should be entitled to the fruits of his labor. Whether or not that eventually leads to collectivist egalatarian communist utopia is a separate issue.

>They grow as far as the state allows them
The state ensures at least a small number of competitors.

>Corporations don't find optimum size
Sometimes, there actually is. Conglomerates make this confusing though, as these are basically diversified entities consisting of several smaller corporations with good sizes for the industries they operate in.

Here is a discussion about modern alienation in the physical and mental sense: roarmag.org/essays/age-of-anxiety-precarity/

I think that it is pretty common knowledge that worker productivity has increased without a correlated increase in wages/standard of living/satisfaction/etc. In that sense you could say that we are more alienated. The linked article gives discussion as to the why and how.

>Alienation is a dumb theory Marx got from philosophy and has no basis in reality.
What exactly is dumb about it? Do you feel the suffering of every Chinese child labourer who has to suffer through life to make cheap electronics whenever you see an Apple product? Or imagine how awful a life it must be to work in a sweatshop in Sri Lanka every time you see a 1 dollar shirt?
Or does everyone do that and is it just me who is the only person on earth who can enjoy alienation because the entire concept has no basis in reality?
God what a pretentious retarded post, fucking neck yourself.

how do i get the nazi flag

>Even Marx abandoned it in his later writings

proof

by being an oldfag, you fucking candy-ass :^)

>>They won't strike indefinitely
>Do you understand what the word can means?
>>can
>>be able to
>It means employers can't simply wait for a strike to end, and employees don't have to feel coerced to work jobs to survive.

They can make an offer that is worth the job if they want people to take the job.

>>they'll work when they are made a good offer
>That's the point of striking, to get a good offer.
>>There won't be such a thing as strikes, just quitting jobs that you don't like.
>Based on nothing.

If you can quit when working conditions or wages are bad, then you don't need to strike.

>>I don't want people actually working jobs, I want people to get access to time and stuff. Jobs are a means to an end, the objective should always be to get rid of mandatory jobs.
>You're not a Marxist, so you should shut up about Marx. You're just a filthy utopian socialist, which Marx wrote against. Marx is about anti exploitation. It's funny that for plebs, you have Bioshock for example, which people associate being entitled to the sweat of one's brow with objectivism, when it's actually a primary core value of Marxism as well. Marx thinks a worker should be entitled to the fruits of his labor. Whether or not that eventually leads to collectivist egalatarian communist utopia is a separate issue.

I don't understand your complaint. Are jobs not means to ends? We should not have the goal of creating jobs at all, that's insanity, our goal should be maximum free time and stuff per job.

>>They grow as far as the state allows them
>The state ensures at least a small number of competitors.

And ensures they can't really compete.

>>Corporations don't find optimum size
>Sometimes, there actually is. Conglomerates make this confusing though, as these are basically diversified entities consisting of several smaller corporations with good sizes for the industries they operate in.

They are good sizes for the legal environment they're operating in.

OP here, Thank you for your discussion and input has really helped get me going. Unfortunately I only have 1000 words to articulate my idea. The official essay title is 'In the contemporary, Western world, are we less alienated than in Marx’s time?'

I am pretty sure in my conviction we are less alienated than a hundred odd years ago. There are easily more oppurtunites for human development today in western society, even the welfare dolts have internet and tablets. Yes they might be using them to post selfies however it does not remove the fact that they have access to a great technology likes of which has never been seen (perhaps comparabke to the printing press?) that if used properly can help free you from the shackles of psychological oppression to an extent.

In third world countries where they are sweating their balls off to make smart phones for 30 cents an hour yes they are not seeing any fruits of their labour but the question specifically asks 'Western World'.

How can i structure this I'm panicking and have to work 5am to 1pm tomorrow so i really have to finish this tonight.

>They can make an offer that is worth the job if they want people to take the job.
>If you can quit when working conditions or wages are bad, then you don't need to strike.
You do realize some people want to keep their job, they just want to renegotiate terms of employment, right? Striking is quitting until you get the terms you want.

>our goal should be maximum free time and stuff per job.
Which requires people to at least be productive enough to fend for themselves. If you don't like spending all day hunter gathering or sustenance farming, then that usually means some for of employment.

>You do realize some people want to keep their job, they just want to renegotiate terms of employment, right? Striking is quitting until you get the terms you want.

Sure. Without basic income, the employer gets to set these terms. With basic income, both parties can haggle over it.

>Which requires people to at least be productive enough to fend for themselves. If you don't like spending all day hunter gathering or sustenance farming, then that usually means some for of employment.

All that requires is widespread access to capital.

Actual alienation, or feel of alienation? And I think you fundamentally misunderstand Marxist alienation.

>we are less alienated because even poor people have internet and tablets
t. totally not alienated

>At the moment i am arguing that we are less alienated because there is more opportunity today for someone at the lowest end of the class structure to rise in status/class economically than in Marx day.
But the chairs user, THE CHAIRS!
They're not shiny enough, I can't see myself in them. I guess we have no choice but to ruin the world...

>Sure. Without basic income, the employer gets to set these terms. With basic income, both parties can haggle over it.
Yes, but you seem to be in denial over that fact and think prices will be magically set with no form of negotiation taking place.

>All that requires is widespread access to capital.
Basic income isn't access to capital if you're using basic income for food and shelter, retard. And if you're proving enough basic income to be used as capital, you're providing enough basic income for people to be lazy and be leeches and do nothing, and not even pull their own weight.

>I'm panicking and have to work 5am to 1pm tomorrow so i really have to finish this tonight

kek

make sure to take advantage of those opportunities for "human development" OP. In your time off, of course.

>Yes, but you seem to be in denial over that fact and think prices will be magically set with no form of negotiation taking place.

I hadn't said that.

Basic income allows negotiations to begin. You can't really negotiate when unemployment can easily ruin a person or a family.

>Basic income isn't access to capital if you're using basic income for food and shelter, retard. And if you're proving enough basic income to be used as capital, you're providing enough basic income for people to be lazy and be leeches and do nothing, and not even pull their own weight.

If you're using basic income to buy a house, it is giving you capital.

>lazy and leeches

wat

People don't want more than they have?

>People don't want more than they have?
maybe they should earn it instead of stealing/killing for it...

Fuck off you commie faggot.

>maybe they should earn it instead of stealing/killing for it...

Earn it?

So you're against inheritance? You're against owning shares or renting property? Honestly? You think everything should be earned?

>Basic income allows negotiations to begin. You can't really negotiate when unemployment can easily ruin a person or a family.
Hence the ability to strike indefinitely. You seem to magically think that companies will make offers that people will take without any of this kind of negotiating, and somehow seem to think people will quit to find other jobs elsewhere, rather than temporarily quit to seek better terms.

>Basic income allows negotiations to begin. You can't really negotiate when unemployment can easily ruin a person or a family.
Why are you bringing this up? I never disagreed with this. I said it allows a person to strike indefinitely, and then you said that through magic, strikes wouldn't exist.

>If you're using basic income to buy a house, it is giving you capital.
Not all property is capital moron, and you shouldn't be able to afford actually buying a house on basic income.

>People don't want more than they have?
Not if you give them enough to be content with. It becomes a cost benefit analysis of the marginal work/displeasure/loss of time, for the marginal gains made from working. Basic income should be low enough to leave people wanting. In other terms, not enough to straight up buy a house or start a business. Basic capital is for meeting basic needs like food and rent. Access to capital is a separate issue from basic income, and the two should not mix.

During the lecture there was a lot of emphasis on Marx four modes of alienation. Ultimately he was saying that in this world of mass production and wage-slave-labour we become increasingly disconnected from our human nature and can not develop individually or collectively to our full potential.

The object of production - what are we producing and for what reason ? Is todays average shoe maker in the factory doing so because of a natural love inside him for producing shoes?

Act of production - labor is simply a means to an end to provide the essentials for survival. Labor is forced, economically, therefore is not straight forwardly 'voluntary'. Is the chink putting together the iPhone hundreds of times a day proud with all the happy people who will use these phones he 'made' therefore the act of doing so compels him to repeat it daily. No he needs chink-bucks to buy rice.

Species being - what makes us human/separate from the animals ? Individualism and creativity, expression through the arts etc

Alienation from fellow man - Lack of empathy and disconnect from one another. Viewing each other as objects or commodities/employees

>Basic capital
basic income.

Access to capital is different than periodic income.

Access to capital is like giving 0% interest rate loans, ignoring predatory lending and risk. The 0% represents the bank's profits, which are none, because there's no exploitation, and profits you gain from using the loan with your labor are yours. But it's a loan, they aren't giving you money to keep and spend on yourself.

I'm not trying to argue with you, please explain if i am fundamentally misunderstanding this

>What exactly is dumb about it?
It has no impact on reality. It only impacts faggots who care more for how they feel about a chair than the price and quality of the chair. Children know better than to be that stupid for fucks sake.

>feel the suffering of every Chinese child labourer who has to suffer through life to make cheap electronics whenever you see an Apple product?
Are you retarded?

>imagine how awful a life it must be to work in a sweatshop in Sri Lanka every time you see a 1 dollar shirt?
I've never seen a dollar shirt. They work a job where they sew because its preferable to their other options. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't do it.
Learn about free will you commie faggot.

>is it just me who is the only person on earth who can enjoy alienation because the entire concept has no basis in reality?
Sorry for calling you a commie faggot, it looks like you're a normal person pretending to be a commie faggot for a hypothetical. I can't believe there are people stupid enough to care more about their irrational feelings abotu a product than the product itself.
My bad.

Why is it that someone who bets 1 dollar on a lottery and wins a million dollars is more deserving of said money than, say, a professional thief that invested a million dollars to rob 20 million from a bank?

Furthermore, what if the thief uses that money to fund a legal business, creating jobs, paying taxes, while the lottery winner spends all his money on Mexican drugs, Italian cars and European women?

Daily reminder Brazil is practically socialism.
Also, see Cuba, amongst other ex-USSR.

>Hence the ability to strike indefinitely. You seem to magically think that companies will make offers that people will take without any of this kind of negotiating, and somehow seem to think people will quit to find other jobs elsewhere, rather than temporarily quit to seek better terms.

Not magically. But with a basic income you don't have to take just any job offer; they would have to make offers that were worth what the job was worth, it wouldn't be a race to the bottom.

>Not all property is capital moron, and you shouldn't be able to afford actually buying a house on basic income.

Why not?

>Not if you give them enough to be content with. It becomes a cost benefit analysis of the marginal work/displeasure/loss of time, for the marginal gains made from working. Basic income should be low enough to leave people wanting. In other terms, not enough to straight up buy a house or start a business. Basic capital is for meeting basic needs like food and rent. Access to capital is a separate issue from basic income, and the two should not mix.

So it's a myth that people pursue wealth? People stop working when they have enough to eat and somewhere to sleep in real life? No.

This is a question of morality and ethics. I do agree with you though.

>So you're against inheritance?
No, someone earned it. It's their choice how to handle the value they created.
Earning your way in life to benefit your descendent's instead of stealing from those more productive is the right way to go about it.
(I'm against welfare, not a commie)

>You're against owning shares?
No.

>renting property?
Personally, yes. Only people in population centers and plebs who extend beyond their means rent.
(obvious exception for renting short term)

>Honestly?
Yes.

>You think everything should be earned?
Yes.
If it wasn't earned, then that means it was acquired through direct theft or getting the state to steal for you.
Theft is wrong.
(actual theft, not bullshit "I'm only earning a portion of the value i'm producing in exchange for job security, increased efficiency (more value produced/higher wages than if I worked alone), and decreased risk" marxist 'theft')

>If it wasn't earned, then that means it was acquired through direct theft or getting the state to steal for you.

But once you inherit something the state has stolen for you, it's clean?

That way the existing upper class gets to keep their money. Or do we examine whose fortunes were based on the state protecting their property, issuing licenses and keeping out competition with regulations, and then redistribute them?

>Why is it that someone who bets 1 dollar on a lottery and wins a million dollars is more deserving of said money
Willing participation from all parties.

>a professional thief that invested a million dollars to rob 20 million from a bank
He didn't earn it.
You can't call it investment if value doesn't change. At best that is paying for an illegal service.

>Furthermore, what if the thief uses that money to fund a legal business, creating jobs, paying taxes
That's called laundering. It's not his money to spend and he is doing so in order to obfuscate the illegal origin of the money.

>the lottery winner spends all his money on Mexican drugs, Italian cars and European women?
It's his money, he is free to do as he wishes.

>But once you inherit something the state has stolen for you, it's clean?
No.

>That way the existing upper class gets to keep their money.
They keep their money because we don't believe property is rented from the state.
Again. I'm against welfare, not a commie.

>Or do we examine whose fortunes were based on the state protecting their property, issuing licenses and keeping out competition with regulations
Yes. It was wrong.

>then redistribute them?
We look beyond the symptom and cure the disease. The problem is the abuse of state power, not the result.
Don't let jealousy blind yourself.

>Not magically. But with a basic income you don't have to take just any job offer; they would have to make offers that were worth what the job was worth, it wouldn't be a race to the bottom.
You said strikes wouldn't happen because of magic. Striking is a form of negotiation. Things still have to be negotiated, striking is a tactic. You offered no mechanism through which striking would disappear. If you are unwilling to strike or quit because you like your job even though you aren't being fairly compensated, then you can still be exploited. I said the ability to strike indefinitely. You took it way out of context, like you thought the point of striking was to not work, and they wouldn't strike indefinitely. No shit retard. Then you go on to say strikes are removed via magic.

>Why not?
Do you understand the concept of the means of production?

>So it's a myth that people pursue wealth? People stop working when they have enough to eat and somewhere to sleep in real life? No.
You're a fucking moron who can't even into micro. You're probably one of those leftist commune idiots that thinks economics is a hoax. You repeatedly try to put words in my mouth. Yes, there is a point where people stop pursuing wealth in favor of having time, such as retirement.

So meritocracy is family based rather than individual based? Nice feudalist system.
And who should i earn land from? If everything should be earned but land is the product of nobody's labor, is the person holding land property stealing from everyone else by denying them the use of the land?
And how come people working 14 hours in some sweat shop in east asia make less money than people doing the same job in a first world country in normal working days? How is "earning" determined? How come people that own property are entitled to social production without doing anything?

>Yes, there is a point where people stop pursuing wealth in favor of having time, such as retirement.
>yfw there are people who work hard for 15 years and retire at 38.

I'll have a large coke and onion rings with that, thanks.

>It's their choice how to handle the value they created.
Just like it should be the capitalist's choice to collude with other capitalists and form an an anti-competitive oligarchical trust, because someone earned it (probably their employees). Oh wait, that's mercantilism, not capitalism.

>Personally, yes. Only people in population centers and plebs who extend beyond their means rent.
A mortgage is rent. The interest your pay on a mortgage is little different than rent. Until you pay off the loan and get the deed from the bank, the bank owns it, and you're renting from the bank, under the banks assumption you'll pay rent (interest) and pay off their capital investment in exchange for the deed at the end once you've finished paying it.

>So meritocracy is family based rather than individual based?
How did you get that from what I said?

>And who should i earn land from?
The owner.

>If everything should be earned but land is the product of nobody's labor,
That's only a thing with BLM land, and the state is doing what it does and going against its purpose by refusing to selling the land.

>is the person holding land property stealing from everyone else by denying them the use of the land?
In the only case where that is a thing in america, yes.
It is the people's land and they refuse to sell it to the people.

>And how come people working 14 hours in some sweat shop in east asia make less money than people doing the same job in a first world country in normal working days?
Oceans are an effective barrier. The major reason is third world shits are literally retarded and educated labor typically costs more.

>How is "earning" determined?
Willing participation. Not literally theft...

>How come people that own property are entitled to social production without doing anything?
They earned it. Also, define social production.

>Just like it should be the capitalist's choice to collude with other capitalists and form an an anti-competitive oligarchical trust
Yes.
Natural monopolies aren't bad. The only bad monopolies are produced by government.
Supply/demand curves mean that it doesn't matter if companies collude.
Also cartels don't last long, there is an major incentive to violate them.

>A mortgage is rent.
No. A mortgage is a loan with collateral.

>The interest your pay on a mortgage is little different than rent.
Except you actually own what you are mortgaging...

>Until you pay off the loan and get the deed from the bank, the bank owns it,
You own it until you default on the loan.

>you're renting from the bank
Literally no.

>the banks assumption you'll pay rent (interest) and pay off their capital investment in exchange for the deed at the end once you've finished paying it.
You hold the deed.

Learn to mortgage, sounds like you're one of the plebs I'm talking about.

Not at all. Increased education and skilled labor are not counted among "the means of production" because the worker, no matter how arcane his particular form of labor, no matter how many simple labors his hiring is able to eliminate, still must sell his labor in exchange for the money commodity. Alienation is basically irreversible: once labor is valued as a commodity, once a certain quantity of money is established as the "equivalent" of its use for a day, it is commodified and alienated from the laborer, seeming to him as an object standing in form him in his relation to the employer.

> . Feels > Reals
Good point. You have convinced me lad...

>How did you get that from what I said?
If:
1) Everything should be earned
2) Owning property let's you live without working
3) Inheritance is okay
You are implying that being the son of someone rich is merit enough for earning a life of lazyness: meritocracy is family based.

>The owner.
Are you kidding me? Who did the owner get it from? And don't answer another owner. Human life didn't just start with land distributed, it was appropriated (obviously, with no "earning" involved).

>Oceans are an effective barrier. The major reason is third world shits are literally retarded and educated labor typically costs more.
That didn't answer anything, user.

>They earned it.
Again, inheritance, appropriation of land, or exploitation are implicitly considered "earning" in your argument.

Cute but wrong.

>Supply/demand curves mean that it doesn't matter if companies collude.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not even neoclassical economics agrees with this.

>alien nation is rulz coz muh feelingz

>Natural monopolies aren't bad. The only bad monopolies are produced by government.
>Supply/demand curves mean that it doesn't matter if companies collude.
>Also cartels don't last long, there is an major incentive to violate them.
These are the kinds of people that claims Marxists don't know economics.

>No. A mortgage is a loan with collateral.
>Except you actually own what you are mortgaging...
>You own it until you default on the loan.
A bank literally owns an interest in the property, it says so on the deed, which is only released once you have paid off their capital investment in addition to the interest. It's even worse in the case of a deed of trust. Thanks to subprime mortgages, even home "owners" can spend out of their means. Claiming they don't have the legal title, but have the power to seize it makes the distinction almost meaningless.

>You hold the deed.
It has a lien on it. Congratulations for feeling proud over a piece of paper.

Then how can banks do any wrong if there is willing participation in the banking system?

Value doesn't change with a lottery either, there's no productive investment, no value added, it's a net transfer of wealth. A poker game between thousands of people, minus the fun.

I'm not questioning what are the (current) lawful means of obtaining money, but when can someone be said to have earned it from an utilitarian perspective.

And if I own a car factory that isn't vertically integrated, I have to buy steel, and they have to buy ore, and so on. There's a reason why I said capital, and when I said means of production, it was as a parallel using the meanings of the words, not the definition of the phrase, not actually meaning Marx's "means of production" although that wasn't clear.

>no matter how arcane his particular form of labor, no matter how many simple labors his hiring is able to eliminate, still must sell his labor in exchange for the money commodity.
It prevents it from being reduced to simple and base wage-labor and a universal commodity. Yes, it requires still a "means of production" generally owned by someone else. Human capital can not completely displace "means of production" capital.

>You are implying that being the son of someone rich is merit enough for earning a life of lazyness
Their ancestors earned it, if they didn't wish for their wealth to be used that way, they should have used a trust.

>Who did the owner get it from?
Another owner.
Before that there was either no claim or the claim wasn't well protected enough and was delegitimized after the lands were held by another nation for a period of time.
Like it or not ownership is legitimized by force. Goverments provide the force. (inb4 muh moon)

>Human life didn't just start with land distributed, it was appropriated (obviously, with no "earning" involved).
Slights lose legitimacy with time.

>>And how come people working 14 hours in some sweat shop in east asia make less money than people doing the same job in a first world country in normal working days?
Because they are willing to do so.

>Again, inheritance, appropriation of land, or exploitation are implicitly considered "earning" in your argument.
No really, please define social production.
To own something you don't need to have personally earned it. All that is needed is willing participation.
I could earn value and trade that value to the owner and then give that property to you. You own it because it wasn't stolen.

So if I become an absolute monarch and tax people of all their belongings so it's legally mine, (of course, I'll let them continue working the fields for the majority of their yield) I own it because it wasn't stolen right? and then I give it to my son, and so on.

>Then how can banks do any wrong if there is willing participation in the banking system?
Provided they do as they say they will, they pretty much can't.

>A poker game between thousands of people, minus the fun.
Yes, willing entrants.

>when can someone be said to have earned it from an utilitarian perspective?
When they live in a place where you are personally responsible for protecting your claim of ownership.

>When they live in a place where you are personally responsible for protecting your claim of ownership.
So if I can convince a bunch of idiots to send you to the gulags it's mine then right? I know you're not willing, but once I kill you and pass around the property a few times, it's good, as the last few transactions will be willing.

>So if I become an absolute monarch and tax people of all their belongings so it's legally mine.
No, because you're the state. Taxation is theft.

>I own it because it wasn't stolen right?
If you were a private individual, I would agree.

>and then I give it to my son, and so on.
We established that a claim of ownership on something stolen isn't nullified through inheritance.

If you can manage to own all the land in nation through willing participation alone, then you are free to be the godking and sharecrop serfs all you want. Even if you get the representatives to name you king, that is fine. Good on you, you earned it.
However, if after you are king you give/sell land away and then it is later taken back by force, then it (the reclaimed lands) is stolen/theft.

>So if I can convince a bunch of idiots to send you to the gulags it's mine then right? I know you're not willing, but once I kill you and pass around the property a few times, it's good, as the last few transactions will be willing.
If you kill the owner for the land and there is no one left with a legitimate claim, then that's fine.
It's wrong, but the alternative is state ownership.

So have you established all the inherited property in the world never has the least bit of violent coercion in their histories?

>Their ancestors earned it, if they didn't wish for their wealth to be used that way, they should have used a trust.
Again, this implies that either the people spending the money didn't earn it, so your principle of "everything should be earned" doesn't hold, or that inheriting is itself earning, and thus meritocracy is family based. Your system is either non-meritocratic or feudalist, your choice.

>Before that there was either no claim or the claim wasn't well protected enough and was delegitimized after the lands were held by another nation for a period of time.
>Like it or not ownership is legitimized by force.
Good. So property is not earned with work, but rather it is appropriated by force. So, this post makes no sense, since property itself was originally appropriated by "stealing/killing". And how would communists stealing/redistributing land by force not be legitimized?
Let's also point out that capitalism started by stealing common lands to create a work force, making a statement like that there was "no claim" laughable. Those silly industrial workers would rather work 14 hours a day than get one of those unclaimed lands!

>No really, please define social production.
Social production is just production in a society. If a land owner rents his land, he is allowed to buy with his rent part of the production that the society has produced without having contributed in the least. I'm sure he is somehow "earning it" though.

>To own something you don't need to have personally earned it. All that is needed is willing participation.
There can be no "willing participation" if the property system allows you to steal others work, and the property system itself is enforced by force, as you claimed. Also, this admits there is no meritocracy.

>If you kill the owner for the land and there is no one left with a legitimate claim, then that's fine.
Can't I spare them but offer them the option to relinquish their claim in exchange for their life? That seems like a win-win for them.

Your a boot licking bitch dude. Where is this code of entitlement you got your hands on ? Morality and Ethics are subjective. If i steal your shit and get away with it, I'm smarter than you.

>1000 word essay

>When they live in a place where you are personally responsible for protecting your claim of ownership.
Isn't what it all comes down to when there's nobody around?

>If you kill the owner for the land and there is no one left with a legitimate claim, then that's fine.
Is this why /pol/ wants to kill all the niggers and kikes? Killing people solves their NAP dilemma?

Claims lose legitimacy with the change of nations and with time.
Sorry juarez, your nation fucked you.

>thus meritocracy is family based
You don't have to be family to inherit, it's just the default.

>that inheriting is itself earning
Again you don't need to personally earn something to own it or for it to have been earned. All you need it the willing transfer from a legitimate owner.

>makes no sense
it does.

>since property itself was originally appropriated by "stealing/killing".
Yes.

>And how would communists stealing/redistributing land by force not be legitimized?
Because the goal is to have things be done willingly and prevent theft/killing for property.

>making a statement like that there was "no claim" laughable.
Most of america... The vast majority of indians (~97%) were dead for hundreds of years from disease before westward expansion even started.
If everyone that had a claim is already dead, then there is no claim.

>I'm sure he is somehow "earning it" though.
Someone produced value in order to buy it. So I would say yes.

>if the property system allows you to steal others work
But it doesn't. It's state abuse that permits that.

>the property system itself is enforced by force, as you claimed.
Because stopping someone who tries to accomplish something with force requires force.

>Can't I spare them but offer them the option to relinquish their claim in exchange for their life?
If we're still in the scenario where it is up to you to be personally responsible for the protection/legitimization of your claim, then yes.

>If i steal your shit and get away with it, I'm smarter than you.
Or I was busy producing value and making everyone better off because I didn't have to worry about protecting my claim of ownership. You were busy being a nigger.
Gee you sure outsmarted me... [pic related]

Right now that is the case only in africa, the sandlot, liberland, and on the moon (and beyond).

>All you need it the willing transfer from a legitimate owner.
Unless you kill them all, or make them "willing" by force

>Is this why /pol/ wants to kill all the niggers and kikes?
Its because niggers are sub-human and give fine nergo gentlemen a bad name.
For the kikes, its because they faithfully obey their religion as a result are only slightly better then muslims. Also because of blatant historical revision in the name of israel/holocaust propaganda.

>A inherits land from B
>it's fair because B earned it!
>but B inherited it from C
>it's fair because C earned it!
>but C inherited it from D
>it's fair because D appropriated it by force!
>so can we redistribute D's land instead of letting his descendants live without working ad aeternum? Or even better, live in a system where property doesn't grant you magical rights on social production?
>no that would be stealing you dirty commie!
This is pretty hilarious.

I mean, people ultimately depend on other people to claim their individual rights because no one is self-sufficient. If the nature of association is (in part) utilitarian, legality can and should be bent to accommodate an arrangement that rewards the practical consequences of actions over law for the sake of it.