Is Marxism a form of slave morality?

Is Marxism a form of slave morality?

>pic unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
kapitalism101.wordpress.com/law-of-value-the-series/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Obviously the ideology is, yes. But people like Stalin were the ultimate practitioners of master morality.

Don't know
People can never seem to pin down exactly what Marxism is what it entails. The definition are really broad and the theory is sketchy.

>"slave morality?"
>2017
>still worshipping NEETzsche
Why do you still take advice from an incel nihilist when you could be a Chad absurdist heeding the most successful pussy-smasher in the history of philosophy?

He was French so I can safely disregard his existence.

In what way would it reflect slave morality if the intended purpose of marxist analysis is to uncover the domination of the upper classes and uproot it? Does marxist analysis abstract and abstract and misrepresent history? Yes. Does marxist critique intentionally misrepresent philosophy to make it seem like it has an agenda? Even more so. But does it reflect what Nietzsche would call "slave morality"? Not really, quite the opposite.
>People can never seem to pin down exactly what Marxism is what it entails. The definition are really broad and the theory is sketchy.
That's simply because they don't know or have a minor amount of familiarity with marxist theory, so they mostly make shit up as they go (both marxists and people arguing against them). But as far as marxism goes, it's pretty clearly defined as a doctrine (well, at least if by that you mean specifically Marx's philosophy, and ignore his successors, which both built on him and critiqued him).

Why don't you try making an argument for or against instead of just asking peanutbrain

You would rather cloister yourself with academics too busy observing life to live in it, and invent the most cowardly reasons to avoid the discussion

False dichotomy born of unbalanced western Yang philosophical tendencies. Unbalanced Yin is similarly toxic.

The essence of Yin and Yang with supertition and ideology removed is the essence of change. This has been formalized in calculus, the mathematical study of change, as integrals and derivatives: cumulative and instantaneous change. This is reflected in our two modes of consciousness, being and doing. Being is "being in the present moment," which mindfulness meditation cultivates: past and future are not experienced, only a singular ever-present experiential moment, and instantaneous change in this moment. Doing is the mode of thinking, planning, remembering, and anticipating, where there is a singular line of time, a temporal dimension, and moments are snapshots of it much like frames of a film strip.

Eastern philosophy describes the illusion of the self as it emphasizes the being mode, as the self is a narrative construct and requires temporarily to experience, and Hinduism describes the universe as being continually destroyed and reborn for this reason. Western philosophy emphasizes the ego/self as the ultimate reality, "I think therefore I am," and emphasizes meaning (which is literally existential cumulative change) and the unreality of the present.

Yin and Yang aren't opposing forces but complimentary, which has been proven mathematically in the fundamental theorem of calculus in the relationship between integrals and derivatives. This has implications for everything, including morality and political theory, capitalism is a sort of parasitic hyper-doing (capital accumulation) that consumes being - this has given us a profound cultural ADHD and ever-growing anxiety and depression.

Balanced Yin-Yang morality frames human beings as existential artists, with art being all existence. We are co-creators and self-creators, the result of the creative processes of the material universe that have found a way to apply to themselves - this is why the fundamental nature of our consciousness reflects the mathematics of change. The bridge between doing and being is our ability to question, the spotlight of awareness itself should be considered as a question mark: a search, a query. Self-inquiry is this awareness that is questioning itself, it is not binary but a skill that must be cultivated and taught, whereas the current paradigm is that the purpose of questions is to give the right answers. In the future the symbol of spirituality will be the question mark.

>posts a mario block with his eastern philosophy

>NEETzsche

Obviously, Death is the only answer to defiance

Marxism doesn't mean you actively hate the bourgeoisie, just the system that allows for it to happen.

Is the idea of slave morality a product of slave morality? One must be seriously concerned about his inferiority to come up with a complete philosophical system to elevate himself above others. It's no wonder that all this crap comes from a deviant German mind.

...

What does this have to do with Marxism?

Right, we conclude marx was not a marxist then

Sure is.

Every single remark he made isn't included in Marxism. It has little to do with his personal feelings towards certain things.

yes
Christianity --> Marxism

No.
Marxism is a way at looking how human society evolves, nothing more.
Socialism is neither, since wanting to own your own work place doesn't seem like slave morality to me.

>own your own workspace
>Socialism

>nee-chef
>nihilist

Yes, that's what it is about. Instead of the capitalists owning the means of production, the workers themselves do.

Who determine the limits of what is a MoP and what is not?

Means of production are the raw materials and means of labor used in the production process.
If something isn't used in an economic fashion to create products, it's not part of the MoP.

Marxism is a method, communism is an ideology. Marx was a philosopher and an economist.

But, I can use my kitchen oven to make bread for profit, I turn it a MoP(and I can do the same with a lot of other things as my computer, my car, etc). this is why I ask, Who determine the limits of what is a MoP and what is not?

But you will not be able to run a business from a regular home kitchen. That doesn't really make sense.
And even if your home kitchen would be considered a MoP, where is the problem? Your are the worker, so in a socialist mode of production, you would be able to own that kitchen.

Yes but no more so than capitalism

>neatsea
>nihilist

do you even know what slave morality is you fucking donut

do you? you (((bagel)))

so if i build a factory, my workers are entitled to own it?

what?

Hvae fun building and running a factory ALL on your own.
Building it might just take you 20yrs.
It takes several people, even complete seperate departments (construction planing, logistics, ecological planing etc.) to pull that off. And yes, as soon as people work at a factory, they should be represented in the decision making of that business and have some amount of power over it.
Do you also have arguments that are based in reality?

>But you will not be able to run a business from a regular home kitchen.

Why not? you can get profit using many things in your home. Also I found some communist/marxists who are completly against "the petit burgoise", familiar bussiness and even coops because they are produce comodities.

>maoism

>you can get profit using many things in your home.
What point are you arguing here? As I said before, if you work in your house, you are allowed to own it since SOCIALISM IS ABOUT THE WORKERS OWNING THEIR WORKPLACE!!!! It's capitalism in which a small number of people control a business while the majority has no power over it.
> familiar bussiness and even coops because they are produce comodities.
Which makes sense when they occur onder capitalist conditions.

> SOCIALISM IS ABOUT THE WORKERS OWNING THEIR WORKPLACE!!!

then tankies are not socialist

nhb different people contribute different amounts of value to a company, it is pretty obvious, the classic meme example would be the doctor and the janitor

>Which makes sense when they occur onder capitalist conditions.

Like market?

maybe.

then different people should have different amounts of power (amounts of votes, representation in primary council) over the corp. But noone should have no power over one of the major aspects of their life, the job they are working.

Markets describe a way of exchange, socialism is about the way production happens. That's why there even was such a thing as market-socialism. See Tito.

>We got a problem, Princess?

If only more people used this definition.

People who read Marx do.

>See Tito.

>maybe.
Tankies "socialism" is just state capitalism

I never said it was a good idea or that I support it, only that it is possible.

I don't wanna discuss which communist ideology is right in a thread about marxism. Partly because marxism is almost mechanical and there isn't much room to argue over it in the first place.

If marxism is mechanical, then why seems too difficult to implement marxism in the real life without corrupt their principles?

no because it's based on self-interest, not morality

If mental gymnastics was an Olympic sport it would have it's fair share of leftist intellectuals gaining gold constantly.

Whats wrong with mental gymnastics? This is philosophy

Again, marxism isn't some vision of how a society should be, it is a ways of analysing how change in human society works (or even more basic, how change itself works). You can't realise marxism as in building it, only in using when evaluating human history and change in society.
What xou probably mean is socialism/communism. And why did that fail? A mixture of bad conditions under which the construction was tried and the overwhelming force of those opposing said construction.

>marxism isn't some vision of how a society should be.

so, there is no regime in history close to marx theory?

What if my own interests do not match those of others?

>And why did that fail?
>A mixture of bad conditions under which the construction was tried and the overwhelming force of those opposing said construction.
Sure thing, nothing to do with Marxist theory being a shit "theory". It's like using bad math when building something and then blaming gravity when it collapses.

>xou
What exactly are you trying to do here?

Are you retarded?
Marx's theory of Marxism is a method.
You have to understand that Socialism/Communism and Marxism are different things. They are not interchangable words. Marxism is a method of analysis. Of course, by analysing capitalism, Marx came to the conclusion that the class struggle between Proletariat and Bourgeouisie would lead to a dialectical change, in which one of those opposing forces would overcome the other and society would only consist of one class, which can is socialism.
But socialist theory isn't Marxism.

What part of it is shit?

I mistyped.

For clarity purposes, can you post your understanding about Socialism, Communism and Marxism?

then dont align yourself with them? most political philosophy based in self-interest kind of assumes you arent a misanthrope.

Marxism - A method of analysis using dialectical materialism
Socialism - A mode of production where the proletariat has control over the means of production.
Communism - A mode of production where there are no different classes, products are created for use and the production rate has reached post-scarcity.

>You have to understand that Socialism/Communism and Marxism are different things.

>What is marxism-leninism?

>it is a ways of analysing how change in human society works

Something like this?

>What is marxism-leninism?
Alot more practical and less universal.

Yes, but also why and through what that occurs.

So, If I organize a bunch of workers and promise to pay them a set amount to build a factory. Somehow they get to own it? I'm sorry but I don't see why they should have a say in how I run things if the agreement is do what I say and I will pay you.

>Somehow they get to own it?
No, the workers building the physical factory would own the company that builds factories.
But the workers working in your factory would have a right to own it, since all the wealth created in that factory is created by them, through their work.

>Alot more practical and less universal.
Very practical indeed

funny thing is that the soviets were more isolated from the poulation then party, since the soviets were made up of workers, a minority at that time in russia, while alot of peasents were in the party

>class struggle
>slave morality

>then tankies are not socialist
No. Fucking. Shit.

does the wealth not have anything to do with my managerial prospects, or where I decided to build my factory? Giving workers who probably don't have the companies best interest over their owns doesn't sound like a good way to run a business

>does the wealth not have anything to do with my managerial prospects, or where I decided to build my factory?
All value derives from work.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
Since the work is carried out by workers, they are entitled to all fruits of said labor.

> Giving workers who probably don't have the companies best interest over their owns doesn't sound like a good way to run a business
Yes, in capitalism this is not manageable, which is why the construction of socialism is necessary.

>unironically asserting the labor theory of value as a positive and not normative statement

commies are true brainlets

...

I think that's a pretty flawed theory that someone could only believe if they are already subscribed to communist belief. There is more to an economy then just workers. This just proves that a capitalist society will always be more active then a communist one because capitalists don't just work for the sake of working. They work to expand and to fill demand.

>But the workers working in your factory would have a right to own it, since all the wealth created in that factory is created by them, through their work.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

>stuff my body with as much chipotle and choco lax as i can
>spend 12 hours shitting into a barrel
>incredible pain and effort to shit that much
>my barrel of shit is worth a billion dollars cause i went through so much effort to make it

nice, but how about some actual points next time?

What part of it is flawed? Where does surplus value derive from? Do you believe money value just magickly appears?

>what is socially necessary labour time?

here is a point: the only value workers have is what they agreed to in advance for compensation. they are not entitled to ownership of the place they work simply because they got a job there

The point is that the worker doesn't have anything to do with the success of the company, so saying that they should run the place because they do the labor is retarded

>what part of it is flawed
the "socially necessary labour time", what is only necessary isn't what everyone wants. and a society that produces more then what is required is a more wealthy society.

Every smart person could tell you about the subjective theory of value. Something is worth as much as individuals decide it is. Nothing has "inherent value" because it took more labor to make.

why does gold have value then you absolute mongoloid. Is it worth so much money because the sun worked so hard to make it???

>There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. Comparison of the value of a good with the value of the means of production employed in its production does, of course, show whether and to what extent its production, an act of past human activity, was appropriate or economic. But the quantities of goods employed in the production of a good have neither a necessary nor a directly determining influence on its value.

man, you sure did do a good job on proving the point of op, haha. You can stop joking around now...

>implying nietzsche isn't absolutly correct that slave and master morality are for absolute plebs

But your point doesn't deal with the LTV. If all value is created through work, then the only authority you have to make declare the profits created by workers as your own is that you own the means of production used in creating whatever commodity it is you are selling. But the MoP didn't create the value, neither did you, it all derives from the workers.

>The point is that the worker doesn't have anything to do with the success of the company,
This is irrelevant. We are talking about the fundamental basis of value, not over business strategies.

>what is only necessary isn't what everyone wants.
That has nothing to do with the socially necessary labor time. SNLT describes the amount of labour that is necessary to create a product.
Could'have at least googled it.

>Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value.
Price and value aren't the same thing.

What is a price other than an indicator for value?

price is how much value the owner gives something.

>What part of it is flawed?

It's flawed because both theory and practice suffered from this disjunction between value (or cost-based price) and use value. By example, two machines, for instance, could require the same effort to produce, but if one is more productive, more convenient to work at, than the other, then from every conceivable practical standpoint it is worth more. Two tons of coal, requiring the same labour inputs to extract, can differ in calorific value, and therefore in worth. A good looking t-shirt can require the same labour input as an unattractive one. just because two goods have required the same human effort to produce gives us absolutely no ground for believing them to be of the same use-value.

>value is based on how much people work!1!
>nothing else can indicate value

this is what communists actually believe.

Prices refer to the relative "money value" a commodity has in comparison to other commodities and the amount of money charged for it's consumption. Value refers to the produce itself.

>By example, two machines, for instance, could require the same effort to produce, but if one is more productive, more convenient to work at, than the other, then from every conceivable practical standpoint it is worth more.
Again, price and value arent the same.

I highly recommend this page, since it explains this idead alot better and broader then I ever could:
kapitalism101.wordpress.com/law-of-value-the-series/

Yes they do. where is your god now?

Value is an entirely subjective concept that only humans have. Nothing about value can be put into objective terms like you are trying to do.

Value is not an idealistic entity, it's quite materialistic.
It represents labor time and time can be objectively counted (1h, 2h etc.).

>value represents labor time
It doesn't, as already explained.

>price and value arent the same.

I know that, but still the determination of valuations and prices is very important aspect in a (so-called) socialist economy. Also, how is suppose of determine those values and prices in such system? with councils?

so if i spend 30 hours unclogging a toilet versus someone who spends 30 minutes unclogging the same toilet, i deserve more money?

Is value an idea that people thought up, yes or no?

wew