"Marx just didn't want to work!"

Shut the fuck up. It's hard to produce things when the means of production are privately owned. Give him a break ffs

>The Collected Shitposts of user

What the hell? What'd he even wrote about the entire time? Just more commie rambles?

>I mean c'mon! Capitalism is just human nature, guys!

>spinning your gears
value added: 0

not shitting on Marx, just your post

A child advocates communism
A man advocates capitalism
An elder knows it is best to support fascism

what is it with rambling commies? Castro did 5-7 hour speeches. His audience couldn't recall much of what he babbled about.

Actually it's not not just human nature; work and property are concepts known to animals. Monkeys have been observed to develop rudimentary forms of capitalism, making them more intelligent than Marxists

A ghost advocates theism.

>communism is human nature
>writes 50 books to convince people about "human nature."

>Lower apes have shown a tendency to form hierarchy
How does this even prove your point? Do you think capitalism has existed since our inception? Then don't regurgitate your meme about True Capitalism(TM), which "anarcho"-capitalists don't think exists yet, though often only extend to a system which most agree has only been in existence for a couple centuries.

"The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking."
- Murray Bookchin

Capitalism is the most efficient economic system, and that's not just due to "human nature". It is structurally efficient (decentralization, price system, competition).

I bet no one in this thread can concisely define "Capitalism", let alone discuss any critique beyond it.

>capitalism is decentralised
How is a board of executives not centralised? How is a boss not centralisation of power? It is only decentralised in your mind because you think the only political dichotomy is State vs Capitalism, when capitalism will ultimately create a state if left alone. It is hierarchy in its purest form.

>competition
Competition stifles efficiency, since you're getting a bunch of businesses competing to make the same thing, or, in the case of medicine/science, firms do not share information that would otherwise speed up scientific research. It will also inevitably create monopoly (a State), as said before, which will produce shitty products and kill of labour. It is not in the interests of the majority of people, the working class.

Capitalism is a system where the state protects property rights.

>property rights

That is merely one of the common aspects of capitalism as a whole.

It is the only defining aspect of capitalism. Markets aren't free under capitalism, since products are being "created" - they don't create it, the working people do, who aren't paid fairly, and not given a say in their working place - by capitalists (property-owners) who modify wants and neglect needs.

don't use a human nature argument, for that has no ability to prove either side... We don't have knowledge of a "correct" ontology; all economic/political arguments must be conducted within the realm of logic/math/etc.

New to marx; could someone please explain to me the solution to the transformation problem?

>How is a board of executives not centralised? How is a boss not centralisation of power? It is only decentralised in your mind because you think the only political dichotomy is State vs Capitalism, when capitalism will ultimately create a state if left alone. It is hierarchy in its purest form.

Yes, it is decentralized as opposed to a state run economy, but the point was that the sort of decentralization present in capitalism is efficient.

>Competition stifles efficiency, since you're getting a bunch of businesses competing to make the same thing, or, in the case of medicine/science, firms do not share information that would otherwise speed up scientific research.

On the net, competition is efficient. That you would suggest otherwise alerts me to the fact that you don't have even the most basic understanding of economics. Besides, research is best left to the universities and government.

>It will also inevitably create monopoly (a State), as said before, which will produce shitty products and kill of labour. It is not in the interests of the majority of people, the working class.

No, competition ensures that monopolies do not form. Again, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

That's a nice fruit salad you've got there.

Which one? From industrialised capitalism to socialism to communism? I'm an anarcho-communist, so I don't really see the point of a State which is supposed to be elected to show the dictatorship of the proletariat. I think the transition to communism (post-scarcity society) could be done through a federation of decentralised communes, who would be voting on issues all the time.

>competition ensures that monopolies do not form

Oh no, they actually believed Thomas Sowell :'(

Not an argument

kek

Why should we have to point out to you that capitalism is hierarchy and generally a shitty way to run an economy? If you want to see your "decentralised" capitalism in effect, look at Chile, where it was put to work. Huge unemployment rates and shitty conditions that were only helped through state subsidies by big daddy USA.

Not to mention the massive terror campaigns and state violence. But I'm sure that's okay, because killing workers is a good thing.

>anarcho-Communists
*tips*

You're not even Communists. Youre western cocksuckers. You are they same fags that probably believe the Western propaganda of "war crimes" committed by the Soviets, Cubans, Chinese, and Koreans.

Marxist-Leninism is the only way that will work. You have to embrace the future.

>Implying a colony is a good indicator of capitalisms effectiveness
In truth we do not live in pure economic conditions. It is neither the fault of communism or capitalism solely for the failure of any particular state. Especially one like Chile who has so little self determination in it's fate. South America is the colony that the United States was never forced to relinquish.

Writing is labour.
Engels was his patron, somewhat of an editor, and co-author.

Considering the fact that virtually all actual economists have left non-capitalist systems behind in the trash, maybe you ought to take a second look at it.

>KILL WHITEY EMBRACE GENOCIDES
You're like Tumblr with tanks, no thank you.

(((economists)))
Jokes aside, do you actually read much outside of right wing capitalist circle jerking?
There's plenty of Marxian or Post-Keynesian stuff out there to read, you can even look at revolutionary Spain and see how well they did. Franco even kept Mondragon as a worker-controlled company, since it was so much more productive than others in Spain. Lots of economies and how they thrive are dependent on the politics of the time e.g. wars going on.

Is there a bigger meme than Marxist-Leninism?

Posadism.

Walk into any economics department in the world and introduce yourself as a marxist and prepare to be laughed out of the room.

The empirical evidence in not exactly in your favor either. Just take a look at India or China after they introduced capitalism, or really, any country. Maybe (maybe) you can find tiny exceptions to capitalism being more efficient , but we have to go by the majority of the evidence.

I'm not a Marxist, I take some ideas from Marx. That's why I told you to look into Marxians and Post-Keynesians. Varoufakis is a start.

the more you read marx the more you realise everything you learned about him was a goddamn lie and he was right about EVERYTHING

That doesn't help you very much.

Nice smarmy comments about empirical evidence(TM). Care to tell me what any of it is? That the US empire has managed to force economic ideas down every other country's throat? That India and China are cheap manufacturers for the West now? That their people toil in abject poverty and will never be able to do what they want? That they're contributing profusely to emissions and exacerbating global warming? (I think America and Australia have worse emissions than China, per person, but you get my point.)

The mistake is to think that it was better before and that it won't get better. The West had to go through the same thing - that the supply of labor is so damn large.

Why not give labour a say in their workplace? Like worker-controlled micro economies, which can trade with others in the region e.g. townships trading with one another for things. How is capitalist growth solving any problems in India other than marginalising the majority of the people, keeping them poor and flocking to the city?

By the way, you miss the point of Marx (who I don't agree with) who says that capitalism must industrialise a country, which should then turn into socialism, and then communism.

>Why not give labour a say in their workplace? Like worker-controlled micro economies, which can trade with others in the region e.g. townships trading with one another for things.

Does the word "efficiency" have no meaning to you? You want to go back to the middle ages?
Though I'm not sure what exactly you mean by letting workers have a say. If you mean that workers should make all company decisions, I should refer you to my question.

> How is capitalist growth solving any problems in India other than marginalising the majority of the people, keeping them poor and flocking to the city?

Again, you seem to have a collapsed horizon. You have to let capitalism work its magic by increasing the wealth, as we have seen everywhere (and don't even try to dispute something so basic and uncontroversial in economics).

>By the way, you miss the point of Marx (who I don't agree with) who says that capitalism must industrialise a country, which should then turn into socialism, and then communism.

I am aware of this point.

True scholars take the Strasserpill

You can shitpost about "efficiency" all you like, but we very nearly live in a post-scarcity world with regards to necessities. We don't need to squeeze every last drop of juice out of the orange, we can instead start to focus on distributing the pieces evenly such that everyone can live without fear of destitution and exploitation.

t. never read marx

absolutely classic desu

>implying unemployment is inherently bad
loving every laugh

>writing
>work

You Bourgeois motherfucker

>tfw you write 50 volumes of ironic fart fetish posts on Veeky Forums and marx wrote 50 volumes of letters sincerely campaigning for socialism

*BRAAPPPPPPPP*

Do you not understand corporate structure, the board of representatives are the "boss" of the company. They are a decentralized group that can be replaced by the shareholders at large

>someone writes a post that even hints at challenging his marxist world view
>IMMEDIATELY strawmans
Is this marxist intellectualism?

a masterpiece in our time

that's how they get you. sheer attrition

Why can't we ever have a nice conversation about this topic?

>handing my money over to people who either are not as valuable as i am or simply have done nothing to deserve it
no thanks

>he doesn't agree with my marxist bullshit so he must not have read it
nice

>i'm an anarcho-communist
Thanks for the laugh, user. I had a bad morning.

Yeah. Ancoms.

...

because marxists can't into argumentation, logic, and economics

kkkkkkkrhhhhh we found the ideology. Over kkrkkkkrh

Just because people are living deems them worthy of being given some of the resources I worked to attain?

>valuable
>deserve
>my

Just keep chugging that ideology, friend

>Implying socialism and Communism aren't themselves ideologies

>we very nearly live in a post-scarcity world with regards to necessities

>my money
>not mine
Come and take it, pantyboy.

They're working within a specific commie lexicon
In the western world certainly

>we very nearly live in a post-scarcity world with regards to necessities.
This is your brain on leftism/marxism

>using capitalist notions of labor and ownership in a Marxist context

The amount of unoccupied housing in the world could house every homeless person. The amount of food produced in North America alone could feed the whole world. Property rights impede on the former, and US market manipulation the latter. Food would sell for orders of magnitude less if we didn't pay farmers subsidies to let their land go untilled.

What does Veeky Forums think of the theory of Alienation?

>Marx didn't want to work!
>shows pictures of books titled "MARX AND ENGELS", with the captions that they were all Engel's work or the collections of "letters"

dude did nothing but shitpost for half of his life, occasionally compiling letters into glorified shitposts like The German Ideology. without engels there'd be no marx. get over yourself

Homelessness is a mental illness issue and most houses are vacant for a short period of time
This is one of the stupidest arguments against capitalism

Four of the fifty books are marked Engels, and that represents his entire contribution to the collection beyond editing.

pleb discourse

If that's what we're going to call post-scarcity, we have only attained it through market efficiency.

Your post smacks of marxism in its naive linearity. It's not as if we have reached "Da Point In History" where we have "da houses" and "da food" and we just give it (somehow) to "da people". But never mind that - it will just happen - somehow!

Yes, people move around a lot so which particular houses are vacant changes frequently, but there is still 5 times as much available housing at any given point as would be needed to house all of the homeless population.

You pay taxes so that the price of food stays high. If you think that's efficient, you're too far gone to save.

...

I don't approve of subsidies and no one in their right mind can. Capitalists and socialists agree on that issue.

if the west is living in post-scarcity, why do we need to redistribute wealth to make up for the failures of some groups to meet their living needs?

but there's nowhere near as much as 5x the available resources for those people you dumb shit. If housing was all that was necessary why not just post everybody up in hoovervilles and FEMA camps?

Because the owner class controls access to resources and deprives those people of partaking in the bounty

He owned and operated multiple newspapers (all shut down by the state) and worked for the New York Times (some American rag, I forget which).

>owned
triggered

It's more "this is an absurdly reductive claim, so he must not have read it". It's the kind of thing some grandstanding amateur would say about something he'd never read, but which he'd read other people's opinions of.

>implying unemployment is inherently bad
Starvation's pretty shit yeah

>labor = physical labor
wew

>Just take a look at India...after they introduced capitalism
I seem to remember something about huge slums, factories, pollution and poverty. And famines which killed millions. Of course things were pretty shit beforehand, too, but that's the nature of feudalism.