Discuss this authors work

I BET HE NEVER HAD SEX LMFAO

>state capitalism is communism
I'm center-right, but god damn you need to go back to r/thedonald

>I'm center right

What does this even mean? You have a gun rack in your volvo?

he got his maid pregnant and blamed it on engles

Voted McCain in 2008, Romney in 2012, and Clinton in 2016. In spite of being pro-business, pro-free-trade, and otherwise pro-free-market-capitalism, I still understand that a state-run economy is capitalist, because the means of production aren't owned by the workers.

Gotta understand what the commies want before you can talk shit about 'em.

>What does this even mean?

Democrat

their time as roomates would make for a great sitcom

>a state-run economy is capitalist, because the means of production aren't owned by the workers
your conception of capitalism is too broad

It's ironic because he harshly criticized the bourgeoisie for exactly this kind of predatory sexual behavior.

I disagree. Especially in a conversation about Marx, it's important to work with the less-controversial Marxist definition of capitalism, and add the "free market" specifier to indicate a liberal (or, if you're American, "libertarian") position. Makes communication easier, and snuffs out
>not TRUE communism
arguments before they happen.

yeah but your conception includes modes of production like feudalism

they loved each other. he did not exploit her.

she used to attend to the barnacles on his bum and one thing led to another. these things happen.

A lot of Post-Marxists would call Feudalism a kind of capitalism. I don't think it's a great definition, but I use it because it's the least controversial one. Again, I don't necessarily agree with the conception, but it isn't a source of contention, so it isn't worth arguing. Better to just cede the point and die on a more important hill.

If he loved her so much why didn't he acknowledge their child?

because (are you ready for this?) it actually wasn't his but the negro doorman from down the lane. communism was founded on cuckoldry

This about sums him up.

But none of those things are private property...

How are real property or bullion not private property?

I've read the Manifesto and Capital.

Haven't read him and never will.

...

I like early Santa Claus cause thats when he wrote Jingle Bells. But rudolph is good too so i dont know.

outdated
don't know how people can unironically call themselves Marxists with how much the theory has been both developed and criticised

...

>white bar at bottom
Reactionary AND incompetent, wew lad.

Disproven theoretically and practically. It is like reading historical discussions of vulcanism from before plate tectonics was understood; historically interesting, but ultimately a waste of time.

Your house and your car are personal property. Has Veeky Forums not gotten further than the fifth page of the Manifesto or something?

Show, not tell.

>implying a house is movable

Literally the definition of real property is immovability.

Brainlet

>lmao i can find the exception therefore thousands of years of western jurisprudence and common law are void

Obtuse idiot.

Das Kapital is about 100 pages shorter than Atlas Shrugged but contains about half the meaning.

Sound logic

In what way? Marx wrote a material critique of an economic system, which has proved accurate in its broad strokes although some of the particulars were off, while Rand just did a tiresome "I'm better than everyone" fantasy. There's no meaningful comparison.

The image wasn't meant to illustrate my point, I just thought it was funny. If you want the full luck counterexample, it goes something like this:
>imagine a hypothetical mine where diamonds are buried, always in clusters of two
>there's no way to prospect for the diamonds, so finding them is just chance; the odds of finding a pair of diamonds are 50/50
>the expected value of a day's work is 1 diamond; according to the LTV, this should align with the fruits of any individual worker's day
>two workers enter the mine, both equally capable, well-fed, etc. (fulfilling the "ordinary circumstances" portion of the LTV)
>one finds 2 diamonds, one finds 0 diamonds
>according to the LTV, 0 diamonds = 1 diamond = 2 diamonds

Unless you believe that statistics are false, then the LTV falls apart when chance plays a role in production. Real-life cases of this exist, like crop yields — two farmers can do exactly the same thing to two fields of wheat, but unknowns can make one field yield more than the other. By the LTV, the two unequal yields would be equal.

The easy counter-argument here is that you should go out on more days and measure the average yield over a worker's career, but even then, discrepancies will exist, and you'll get something like
>9998 diamonds = 10000 diamonds = 10005 diamonds
which is still wrong, and, when dealing with something as valuable as a diamond, wrong enough to matter.

>t. center-rightman

The typical Marxist response to this would be that it really doesn't matter what the expected labor-time is at the actual time of production, but at the time a product goes to to market, because value is meant to be determined by *socially necessary* labor-time. Obviously, this itself come with a whole host of other problems. This essay here is pretty good explanation of the problems with LTV from a left perspective: versobooks.com/blogs/3128-the-labour-theory-of-value-and-the-concept-of-exploitation

Good analysis, thanks. I didn't know that the
"socially-necessary" component was so commonplace.

Even so, we could accommodate this in our thought experiment by stipulating that the diamonds are taken to market immediately, and that this crude tactic is the best available for mining. At this point, it becomes unrealistic, but the LTV still shows the same problem, because the expected value from a given amount of labor time will never equal the actual value, as established under our expanded definition and experiment.

In other words, because the LTV relates value to labor even indirectly, it doesn't withstand cases like these. We can retool our thought experiment to dig at the same fundamental problem.

"why do stuff cost money?" - Carl Marks