Marxism #11 Surplus Value and financial exploitation of Workers

[Caesercel]

(tldr marked in red below)
Let's summarise what we've learned so far,

>All commodities have a Use Value ,owing to it's usefulness, and an Exchange Value, how it's evaluated during an exchange in the market.
>Exchange Value comes from Labour
>Money is a measure of Value.

In the last post on Money , we observed that the last M' in the M-C-M' equation is greater than the first M. Because a business sells a commodity at a profit above the investment. But how is this possible if the Exchange Value is dependent on Labour and the Labour to create the commodity didn't change before and after sale. Where did this excess Value that we call "profit" come from?

To answer this, we must understand what's actually going on in Capitalism.

Let's say a worker sells his labour to the Capitalist for an agreed amount of money called wages. But what the Worker is selling is not his actual labour but a Labour Power. LP is the potential to perform a labour task for a set period of time. In this way, LP itself is a commodity that can be bought/sold on the labour market. And like all commodities it has it's own Exchange Value (V1). Which like all other commodity exchange values is the sum total of all the Labour required to create it.

You can think of it as the Labour done by a farmer to produce the food that the Worker ate to energise himself for the daily grind. Or the Labour done by the textile worker to create the cloth the Worker wears to work. Basically all the other labours that contribute to making the Worker capable of work, contribute to the Exchange Value of his Labour Power. And it is THIS Exchange Value (V1) that is compensated by the Capitalist by exchanging it for equivalent value of money, what we call wages.

Now that the Capitalist officially owns the Labour Power of the worker after paying wages, that Labour actually gets executed on the factory floor. And this Labour contributes to the overall Exchange Value of the final commodity (V2). Which is represented by the revenue that Capitalist makes after selling that commodity in the market.

Now here's the kicker. In normal conditions , the Exchange Value of Labour Power is always less than than the Value generated by that Labour.

V2>V1


And this differential is the source of Surplus Value.
V2 - V1 = Surplus Value

This is the excess Value that serves as the analytical foundation of "Profit". In simple words:

All Workers/Employees get paid less than the actual economic output of their labour.

This is not some one off trick performed by this specific Capitalist. This is the FOUNDATION of Capitalism itself. A worker MUST be paid less than his output because that's where profits for the businesses/owners come from. If every worker is paid the real economic output of their hard labour then profits wouldn't exist.

 

[NEB.feelsdevil]

It's over, mang. Capitalism won and we are slaves

 

[Caesercel]

we are slaves

Yeah but most people don't even understand what that means. They say they are poor or barely scrapping by without knowing the real issue at the source of it.

 

[Pikacel]

Corpo capitalism > inefficient commie bureaucracy

Elites will always win, so at least let the business minded job-making industrialists control us

 

[Maxwellian]

Capitalism won and we are slaves

"In capitalist society spare time is acquired for one class by converting the whole life-time of the masses into labour time."

 

[literallyretarded]

not these retarded communist again both capitalism and communism is controlled by jews its the same shit nigger that's why only viable solution is nationalist socialism. so you can get the best of both worlds.

 

[Pikacel]

"In capitalist society spare time is acquired for one class by converting the whole life-time of the masses into labour time."

You can hop on the dole if you want

 

[literallyretarded]

your views are better suited for reddit you fucking libtard communist.

 

[Caesercel]

Corpo capitalism > inefficient commie bureaucracy

Communism doesn't have to be bureaucratic. And it's certainly no more bureaucratic than Corpos. As for efficiency, I think it serves to question what is being achieved so efficiently here. Extraction of labour? Destruction of the planet? Is the kind of economic efficiency that comes from having a man work 3 jobs for the pay of one really worth it?

the business minded job-making industrialists

I won't comment on which kind of elites are better or if they are needed at all. These are open questions. But I take issue with the idea that we need business people to "create jobs". Because this is circular logic. Requiring Capital owners to invest in resources and labour for work to get started is a core symptom of Capitalism.

 

[Pikacel]

Communism doesn't have to be bureaucratic. And it's certainly no more bureaucratic than Corpos. As for efficiency, I think it serves to question what is being achieved so efficiently here. Extraction of labour? Destruction of the planet? Is the kind of economic efficiency that comes from having a man work 3 jobs for the pay of one really worth it?


I won't comment on which kind of elites are better or if they are needed at all. These are open questions. But I take issue with the idea that we need business people to "create jobs". Because this is circular logic. Requiring Capital owners to invest in resources and labour for work to get started is a core symptom of Capitalism.

Imagine if my nigger country had benevolent Zaibatsu corp to lift it into 1st world

 

[Caesercel]

its the same shit nigger

No they are not. Quite the opposite actually.

that's why only viable solution is nationalist socialism.

That's not an alternative. That's just Capitalism hiding behind a veneer of populism.

libtard communist.

Oxymoron. If anything liberals have always been the precursors to fascism

 

[literallyretarded]

No they are not. Quite the opposite actually.

That's not an alternative. That's just Capitalism hiding behind a veneer of populism.

Oxymoron. If anything liberals have always been the precursors to fascism

you are stupid when i say the same thing i mean they are both controlled by jews how can you support an ideology that was created by jews Marx was a jew and had Zionist friends to destroy the white race yes that is what they used communism for. look at soviet union they weren't Russian majority of officials were Jewish that's why they killed millions of white Russians and outlawed religion and burnt churches but they didn't to that with Judaism did they. next national socialism is completely against capitalism why do you think Hitler hated the west and wanted to destroy capitalism he said both the communists and capitalists are the enemy of the German people. why else would the capitalists and communists team up to destroy him national socialism its literally in the name the nazis had many leftist economic policy's so your retarded and kys you jewish loving cuck. btw i read the communist manifesto but i bet you didn't read mien kampf or watch Europa the last battle shows how educated i am compared to you.

 

[AutistSupremacist]

you are stupid when i say the same thing i mean they are both controlled by jews how can you support an ideology that was created by jews Marx was a jew and had Zionist friends to destroy the white race yes that is what they used communism for. look at soviet union they weren't Russian majority of officials were Jewish that's why they killed millions of white Russians and outlawed religion and burnt churches but they didn't to that with Judaism did they. next national socialism is completely against capitalism why do you think Hitler hated the west and wanted to destroy capitalism he said both the communists and capitalists are the enemy of the German people. why else would the capitalists and communists team up to destroy him national socialism its literally in the name the nazis had many leftist economic policy's so your retarded and kys you jewish loving cuck. btw i read the communist manifesto but i bet you didn't read mien kampf or watch Europa the last battle shows how educated i am compared to you.

Paetel> Hitler

 

[literallyretarded]

View attachment 1655365

Paetel> Hitler

paetel was jewish puppet. hitler was the only force opposing the rising jewish problem and now look at society now that the jews won if only hitler own than things would be different.

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

View attachment 1655365

Paetel> Hitler

paetel was jewish puppet. hitler was the only force opposing the rising jewish problem and now look at society now that the jews won if only hitler own than things would be different.

I think that autist might have a point here. Although internally I agree with Hitler on virtually every single thing except abortion, he failed. We know he failed because we are living in it. Specifically, his foreign policy.

If karl otto paetel were to have taken over the country instead of Hitler, it would've meant alliance with Stalin. This would 100% lead to Germany winning the second world war and the rapefugee crises never reaching Europe, assuming a nationalist order remained in Germany to this day and didn't collapse like the soviets IRL. Paetel was a pagan revivalist as well just like the SS, he wasn't pro Jewish or anything.

Basically I like Hitler but, in hindsight someone like paetel would've been better (with some assumptions in mind)

 

[literallyretarded]

I think that autist might have a point here. Although internally I agree with Hitler on virtually every single thing except abortion, he failed. We know he failed because we are living in it. Specifically, his foreign policy.

If karl otto paetel were to have taken over the country instead of Hitler, it would've meant alliance with Stalin. This would 100% lead to Germany winning the second world war and the rapefugee crises never reaching Europe, assuming a nationalist order remained in Germany to this day and didn't collapse like the soviets IRL. Paetel was a pagan revivalist as well just like the SS, he wasn't pro Jewish or anything.

Basically I like Hitler but, in hindsight someone like paetel would've been better (with some assumptions in mind)

no it wouldn't because paetel would ally soviets who are controlled by jews your not anti Jewish if your going to ally with them if he would take over Germany would just be a puppet to the soviet union and we would be living in communist Jewish bolshevist society still controlled by jews because of the soviet union it doesn't matter that Hitler lost he laid the foundation of his ideas a man can die but not his ideas us Nazis will always be here ready to strike at the disgusting corpse that is modern day society and take over we will win in the end.

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

no it wouldn't because paetel would ally soviets who are controlled by jews your not anti Jewish if your going to ally with them if he would take over Germany would just be a puppet to the soviet union and we would be living in communist Jewish bolshevist society still controlled by jews because of the soviet union it doesn't matter that Hitler lost he laid the foundation of his ideas a man can die but not his ideas us Nazis will always be here ready to strike at the disgusting corpse that is modern day society and take over we will win in the end.

I'd disagree with the idea that Germany allying with the soviets would turn them into a puppet. Germany was possibly stronger but at least as strong as the USSR at the time, and he still had ideological disagreements with the soviets. On top of that I don't believe that (at least under Stalin) it was a completely Jewish controlled government.

Under lenin the Soviet Union was 100% Jewish. Lenin himself was Jewish along with yagoda, kaganovich, Iurii Kamenev, Maksim Litvinov, Karl Radek, Iakov Sverdlov, Leon Trotsky, and Grigorii Zinov'ev. They outlawed antisemetism and made it punishable by death, while burning half the Christian churches in the country and organizing a genocide of white people.

However I do believe there was a pragmatist shift in policy under Stalin, not a anti Jewish ideological shift but simply a pragmatist one. He executed many of the Jews I mentioned earlier (trotsky, Yagoda, kamenev, Litvinov, radek, Sverdlov, Zinoviev) which I don't believe was out of antisemtisim itself but rather a natural result of
A. Jews attempting to usurp every country they reside in
B. Stalin genuinely trying to retain the Soviet government and stop fifth columnist

On top of this, despite the fact that Stalin was definetly not a racialist, I still see he had some pragmatic actions on race (even if I don't like them). For example all the ethnic minority purges and forced movements of the USSR, their colonization of Kazakhstan with Russians, exc. I would like to think a Stalin in the USA would theoretically purge the leading Jewish figures we have as well as make a forced movement of blacks into the same areas due to the prevalence of their crime, out of pragmatic policy instead of ideological white nationalism or anything of the sort.

In essence I don't really like Stalin but I think national socialists seem to never cut him slack simply because he opposed Hitler and vice versa. But the truth is that Nazi Germany sent someone to investigate Stalin before they had talks and they determined he was an Aryan, not Jewish.

 

[literallyretarded]

I'd disagree with the idea that Germany allying with the soviets would turn them into a puppet. Germany was possibly stronger but at least as strong as the USSR at the time, and he still had ideological disagreements with the soviets. On top of that I don't believe that (at least under Stalin) it was a completely Jewish controlled government.

Under lenin the Soviet Union was 100% Jewish. Lenin himself was Jewish along with yagoda, kaganovich, Iurii Kamenev, Maksim Litvinov, Karl Radek, Iakov Sverdlov, Leon Trotsky, and Grigorii Zinov'ev. They outlawed antisemetism and made it punishable by death, while burning half the Christian churches in the country and organizing a genocide of white people.

However I do believe there was a pragmatist shift in policy under Stalin, not a anti Jewish ideological shift but simply a pragmatist one. He executed many of the Jews I mentioned earlier (trotsky, Yagoda, kamenev, Litvinov, radek, Sverdlov, Zinoviev) which I don't believe was out of antisemtisim itself but rather a natural result of
A. Jews attempting to usurp every country they reside in
B. Stalin genuinely trying to retain the Soviet government and stop fifth columnist

On top of this, despite the fact that Stalin was definetly not a racialist, I still see he had some pragmatic actions on race (even if I don't like them). For example all the ethnic minority purges and forced movements of the USSR, their colonization of Kazakhstan with Russians, exc. I would like to think a Stalin in the USA would theoretically purge the leading Jewish figures we have as well as make a forced movement of blacks into the same areas due to the prevalence of their crime, out of pragmatic policy instead of ideological white nationalism or anything of the sort.

In essence I don't really like Stalin but I think national socialists seem to never cut him slack simply because he opposed Hitler and vice versa. But the truth is that Nazi Germany sent someone to investigate Stalin before they had talks and they determined he was an Aryan, not Jewish.

i still disagree becuase its not just that communism is jewish its also communist policy's that i disagree with i dont agree with thier radical ideas i prefer Hitlers economics

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

i still disagree becuase its not just that communism is jewish its also communist policy's that i disagree with i dont agree with thier radical ideas i prefer Hitlers economics

I think the main issue is the results of Germany losing. Tens of millions of Europeans dead, an ethnic genocide and mass rape of Germans, huge territorially loss of Germany after the war, a Soviet iron curtain over eastern Europe anyways, and a modern global liberal order.

The alternative to that if paetel would have won would be
A. Germany would be at its territorial height (paetel supported lebensraum and German unity, if they won the war Germany would've held on to Prussia, Sudetenland, Austria, exc)
B. Not nearly as many Europeans would have died in the war
C. Germany would be euro-pagan today instead of Christian/atheist mix
D. There would be no Muslim "refugees"' or Africans in Europe today.
Maybe his economic positions weren't as good to you but frankly I don't think economics matters. What actually controls the success or failure of a country is purely it's racial makeup and unity. A society of niggers will fail and lead to mass crime and corruption under any economic system they try to implement, and a society of whites will succeed with low crime and a functioning/prospering civilization under any economic system they have. For example, try implementing the Nordic model in Haiti, it wouldn't fucking work. The system doesn't matter nearly as much as the people

 

[Caesercel]

Marx was a jew

Karl Marx never practiced Judaism. He would be considered an antisemite by modern standards.

and had Zionist friends to destroy the white race yes that is what they used communism for.

Lol wut?

. why else would the capitalists and communists team up to destroy him

Correction, liberals and communists teamed up to destroy him.

national socialism its literally in the name the nazis had many leftist economic policy's

Maybe so. I don't really concern myself with all that. But Hitler still owed his power to the liberal Weimar system and all it's pitfalls.

. btw i read the communist manifesto but i bet you didn't read mien kampf or watch Europa the last battle shows how educated i am compared to you.

Well to your benefit I haven't read all that and I haven't read the communist manifesto either.

I will take this opportunity to point out why Marx thought Communism presented itself as the next logical step to the problems established here.
1.The primary system that makes Surplus Value extraction even possible is the private ownership of the means of production.
2. So for workers to prevent their value from being extracted they must take over the means of production for themselves. Thus eliminating the alienation between themselves, their tools of trade, and their final products.
3. Since no particular operation exists in complete isolation and the system is wholly interdependent, this new ownership of means of production must be collective. This establishes communism as the direct result of workers taking over political and economic control of a nation.

 

[literallyretarded]

Karl Marx never practiced Judaism. He would be considered an antisemite by modern standards.



Lol wut?


Correction, liberals and communists teamed up to destroy him.


Maybe so. I don't really concern myself with all that. But Hitler still owed his power to the liberal Weimar system and all it's pitfalls.


Well to your benefit I haven't read all that and I haven't read the communist manifesto either.

I will take this opportunity to point out why Marx thought Communism presented itself as the next logical step to the problems established here.
1.The primary system that makes Surplus Value extraction even possible is the private ownership of the means of production.
2. So for workers to prevent their value from being extracted they must take over the means of production for themselves. Thus eliminating the alienation between themselves, their tools of trade, and their final products.
3. Since no particular operation exists in complete isolation and the system is wholly interdependent, this new ownership of means of production must be collective. This establishes communism as the direct result of workers taking over political and economic control of a nation.

name me one successful communist country. also you can deny as much as you want that marx was a jew but your wrong he had many jewish and Zionist friends he had Jewish blood himself there's no such thing as a jew who hates other jews all jews are only loyal to the Jewish state and people mostly because of their history of being a landless people after being expelled from isreal. lol you didn't even read communist manifesto your not even real communist anyway tell me this is communism jewish yes or no.

 

[literallyretarded]

I think the main issue is the results of Germany losing. Tens of millions of Europeans dead, an ethnic genocide and mass rape of Germans, huge territorially loss of Germany after the war, a Soviet iron curtain over eastern Europe anyways, and a modern global liberal order.

The alternative to that if paetel would have won would be
A. Germany would be at its territorial height (paetel supported lebensraum and German unity, if they won the war Germany would've held on to Prussia, Sudetenland, Austria, exc)
B. Not nearly as many Europeans would have died in the war
C. Germany would be euro-pagan today instead of Christian/atheist mix
D. There would be no Muslim "refugees"' or Africans in Europe today.
Maybe his economic positions weren't as good to you but frankly I don't think economics matters. What actually controls the success or failure of a country is purely it's racial makeup and unity. A society of niggers will fail and lead to mass crime and corruption under any economic system they try to implement, and a society of whites will succeed with low crime and a functioning/prospering civilization under any economic system they have. For example, try implementing the Nordic model in Haiti, it wouldn't fucking work. The system doesn't matter nearly as much as the people

so you rather have a socialist Germany under soviet influence and be more lenite towards jews. than nazis who want to destroy all of our races enemies and create utopia for white man. you have to understand all forms of socialism communism marxism liberalism its all the same shit becuase its all controlled by jews so stalin wasnt based or aryan he was the total enemy of white race he was the leady of an ideology that wanted to wipe the white race off the map.

 

[BenBerger]

(tldr marked in red below)
Let's summarise what we've learned so far,

>All commodities have a Use Value ,owing to it's usefulness, and an Exchange Value, how it's evaluated during an exchange in the market.
>Exchange Value comes from Labour
>Money is a measure of Value.

In the last post on Money , we observed that the last M' in the M-C-M' equation is greater than the first M. Because a business sells a commodity at a profit above the investment. But how is this possible if the Exchange Value is dependent on Labour and the Labour to create the commodity didn't change before and after sale. Where did this excess Value that we call "profit" come from?

To answer this, we must understand what's actually going on in Capitalism.

Let's say a worker sells his labour to the Capitalist for an agreed amount of money called wages. But what the Worker is selling is not his actual labour but a Labour Power. LP is the potential to perform a labour task for a set period of time. In this way, LP itself is a commodity that can be bought/sold on the labour market. And like all commodities it has it's own Exchange Value (V1). Which like all other commodity exchange values is the sum total of all the Labour required to create it.

You can think of it as the Labour done by a farmer to produce the food that the Worker ate to energise himself for the daily grind. Or the Labour done by the textile worker to create the cloth the Worker wears to work. Basically all the other labours that contribute to making the Worker capable of work, contribute to the Exchange Value of his Labour Power. And it is THIS Exchange Value (V1) that is compensated by the Capitalist by exchanging it for equivalent value of money, what we call wages.

Now that the Capitalist officially owns the Labour Power of the worker after paying wages, that Labour actually gets executed on the factory floor. And this Labour contributes to the overall Exchange Value of the final commodity (V2). Which is represented by the revenue that Capitalist makes after selling that commodity in the market.

Now here's the kicker. In normal conditions , the Exchange Value of Labour Power is always less than than the Value generated by that Labour.

V2>V1


And this differential is the source of Surplus Value.
V2 - V1 = Surplus Value

This is the excess Value that serves as the analytical foundation of "Profit". In simple words:

All Workers/Employees get paid less than the actual economic output of their labour.

This is not some one off trick performed by this specific Capitalist. This is the FOUNDATION of Capitalism itself. A worker MUST be paid less than his output because that's where profits for the businesses/owners come from. If every worker is paid the real economic output of their hard labour then profits wouldn't exist.

Nice!
What is you academic background?
Are you a trained economist ?

 

[literallyretarded]

Nice!
What is you academic background?
Are you a trained economist ?

hes not trained in shit becuase hes a retarded communist who deserves death didnt even read communist manifesto.

 

[IWWorkER]

this new ownership of means of production must be collective

What does that even mean ?
And why do you think most people would want that ?

 

[BenBerger]

hes not trained in shit becuase hes a retarded communist who deserves death didnt even read communist manifesto.

 

[Maxwellian]

lol you didn't even read communist manifesto your not even real communist

Communism existed before Marx. Assuming you meant it in the Marxian sense, the Communist Manifesto isn't representative of the mature Marx's ideas. I don't know why people treat the Manifesto as his magnum opus.

 

[subhuman0]

All Workers/Employees get paid less than the actual economic output of their labour.

Of course, if the worker was given its actual economic output, there wouldn't be space to capitalise. Exploitation is the root of capitalism

 

[Caesercel]

What does that even mean ?
And why do you think most people would want that ?

I guess you could think of it as a worker co-op but on a national or even global scale.

Consider this example. I live in a country where atleast some construction workers live in dingy overcrowded slums despite having the physical ability and know how to make apartment buildings or luxury condos for the privelaged. Now let's say one day all of them decide that enough is enough we will build an apartment building for ourselves. We know how to make this stuff , we might as well do it and live with dignity. But when they pool their Capital it's not enough to acquire the required land, material, machines etc.

But wait you say. All land and raw materials required are natural occuring fruits of earth. Everything else is made by labour.

>the workers in the cement factory make the cement
>The workers in the machine factory make the machine used in cement factory
>The workers in the other machine factory make the construction machines
>The workers in brick factory make the bricks
>The workers in tool factory make the tools used in brick factory.
>The workers in steel factory make the steel for all of this stuff
>The agricultural workers grow food for all of them

Now imagine that all these workers come together and take control of the natural resources and start working them to produce whatever is needed by the construction workers. Only thing they want in return is for the construction workers to make apartment buildings for them too, so they all can have dignified housing.

This is the ideal of Socialism/Communism.

You can see the issue with Capitalism here. In each step of this process I laid out above, Surplus Value is being extracted by owners, which means workers are getting less labour value from society than they are giving in. Which irl means living in poorly made dingy slums for some of them.

 

[IWWorkER]

I guess you could think of it as a worker co-op but on a national or even global scale.

Consider this example. I live in a country where atleast some construction workers live in dingy overcrowded slums despite having the physical ability and know how to make apartment buildings or luxury condos for the privelaged. Now let's say one day all of them decide that enough is enough we will build an apartment building for ourselves. We know how to make this stuff , we might as well do it and live with dignity. But when they pool their Capital it's not enough to acquire the required land, material, machines etc.

But wait you say. All land and raw materials required are natural occuring fruits of earth. Everything else is made by labour.

>the workers in the cement factory make the cement
>The workers in the machine factory make the machine used in cement factory
>The workers in the other machine factory make the construction machines
>The workers in brick factory make the bricks
>The workers in tool factory make the tools used in brick factory.
>The agricultural workers grow food for all of them

Now imagine that all these workers come together and take control of the natural resources and start working them to produce whatever is needed by the construction workers. Only thing they want in return is for the construction workers to make apartment buildings for them too, so they all can have dignified housing.

This is the ideal of Socialism/Communism.

Do you think it is possible to organize this on a national scale, let alone international ?
Considering that you (or at least marxists I've talked to, idk for you) also oppose anything that could bring the people together, such as nationalism, cultural or racial homogeneity, it seems delusional.
My worker co-op only has a single digit number of worker and it's already difficult to organize sometimes.

 

[Caesercel]

Do you think it is possible to organize this on a national scale, let alone international ?

The thing is we already are organising production on a global level. Except we are doing so under the paradigm of Capitalism and private ownership of means of production. This is not to say that this hasn't been tried in past and present Socialist countries with varying degrees of success.

Considering that you (or at least marxists I've talked to, idk for you) also oppose anything that could bring the people together, such as nationalism, cultural or racial homogeneity, it seems delusional.

Uh, what may bring people together is a tough question to answer, because of the philosophical implications of whatever stance I might take. If Marx's materialism is correct and national/race consciousness is nothing more than electrochemical signals in our neuron synapses. Then there must have been some material forces out there that made our brain cells this way. So who am I to wave them away. I've already been accused of ignoring the superstructural (ideological) aspect of things once by @plastic chewer so I'll save you the trouble.

Marx's answer to this question was that the workers, compelled by their material circumstances, would develop class consciousness. That is, they will recognise that the real division in our world, on the ground/material/physical level , is not one of race or nationality or ethnicity but one between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The ones who earn through wages derived of their labour and the ones who earn through profits/rent/interests derived from other's labour.

My worker co-op only has a single digit number of worker and it's already difficult to organize sometimes.

I presume it's no less or more hard than things are in a privately owned business with single digit wage workers.

 

[IWWorkER]

The thing is we already are organising production on a global level. Except we are doing so under the paradigm of Capitalism and private ownership of means of production.

Yeah so we dont, that's what I said.
Do you think we should ask every single human on earth for his opinion in every decision ?

This is not to say that this hasn't been tried in past and present Socialist countries with varying degrees of success.

Can you elaborate on these successes ?

national/race consciousness is nothing more than electrochemical signals in our neuron synapses

You can say that about anything, including your gay marxist science, you're just avoiding the problem.

the workers, compelled by their material circumstances, would develop class consciousness.

Clearly they have not.

the real division in our world, on the ground/material/physical level , is not one of race or nationality or ethnicity but one between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Why not both ?

I presume it's no less or more hard than things are in a privately owned business with single digit wage workers.

Well you presumed wrong, and I can't understand how.
Is it not obvious, that considering everyone's opinion and trying to find a middleground, is longer and more difficult, thus expensive, than not having to do so ?

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

The primary system that makes Surplus Value extraction even possible is the private ownership of the means of production.

And in the Soviet Union or any other Marxist country, were the workers paid in full for their labor or was there still a surplus value which they did not receive? From my understanding they not receive it, otherwise there would be no funding for the government to run the industry with, if the bourgeoisie didn't take it the government would have to, correct? A bourgeois takes the workers surplus value in order to continue paying for the operation of the factory, buying more resources to turn into products using his workers labour power, to expand industry further so that he can profit even more, and to take some for himself as we know. And under the Soviet system would it not be the same thing? value would be taken from the workers in order to pay for the operation of the factory and expand industry in the same way, as well as paying the managerial. So in order to convince us that the Soviet system was better in this sense than the bourgeoise, you would have to prove that their wages or quality of life are better for example, that we would have more resources and be more prosperous having our output taxed by the government instead of the bourgeoise.

That is, they will recognise that the real division in our world, on the ground/material/physical level , is not one of race or nationality or ethnicity but one between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

You underestimate the hatred that white people feel towards niggers and Muslims when we see them come to our countries just to rape, murder, and rob us while living on welfare. They tell us they hate us and want to conquer our countries to our face and virtually all young European/white men are tired of it. You can pretend that it isn't true, you can pretend "actually white people don't care about their race going extinct and in fact welcome it!" but we all know what's coming. Maybe you don't because you're some faggot jeet who likes bbc, but all of us young white men know what eachother are feeling and we fucking hate you animals. You also overestimate how much the average white person hates someone who started a business and would be considered bourgeoise, the average person only hates the "super rich" which is not what class is about in Marxism, people don't actually hate the bourgeoisie because they have no reason to hate a fellow white person who loves America and started a business, they DO have reason to hate welfare queen rapefugees who explicitly state they want to conquer white people, burn our flag, and call for sharia law.

Maybe you nigfags would be more convincing if you tried to hide your utter contempt for white people and your desire for our extinction, but you never can. You always have to explicitly admit that you view us as evil and that we may perish, that we don't deserve to have any country of our own, that Britain must become Islamic through mass immigration. And you call any attempt to keep our nations sovereign, to keep Germany ran by Germans instead of retarded violent muslims, "evil" "genocidal" white nationalism. We will never listen to what you ethnics have to say because you fail to convince us that you care about our existence at all, you only feel contempt for white people and want our nations erased from the earth.

 

[Caesercel]

Yeah so we dont, that's what I said.
Do you think we should ask every single human on earth for his opinion in every decision ?

If the world is already organised under an international system built on Capitalism then why can't it be done under other systems?

Your objection is that global organisation is impossible in and of itself. Not that global organisation via socialism is impossible. My answer is that we already are globally organised.

Even in our current system no single person controls every aspect of everything. Even the current bourgeois elite are not a single Hive mind who are on the same page about everything. Why can't a worker based global socialism not be the same? Where everyone stay in their lanes and make deals and relations with whoever they need to. It's not like Socialist countries trading and working with each other is not a thing irl.

Can you elaborate on these successes ?

Well there are two things to consider here. Success in implementing socialist systems like worker control of society and material success. You can look at Soviet Union or Cuba as examples. Both of whom implemented socialist ideals to some degree of success and brought about material improvements again to some degree of success. Like improvements in housing, medicine, tech, food compared to what came before.

You can say that about anything, including your gay marxist science, you're just avoiding the problem.

Lol that's what orthodox Marxists literally believe though. Marx explicitly says that what will drive people towards class consciousness are their material conditions. Physically experiencing their own poverty and observing wealth of the bourgeoisie will literally change their brain to think, "hmm, it doesn't feel right"

.

Clearly they have not.

Bummer, ain't it? Though I disagree that people don't have any class awareness, even if it's muddied by ignorance or nonsense. Euphemisms like "banking elites" and "jews" come to mind. People can see something is wrong, they just can't see exactly how.

Why not both ?

Lmao. Taking this question to it's logical conclusion will lead to intersectionality. You know, the thing that modern leftists practice to mix Capitalism with white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia and patriarchy to create the straight cis white male boogeyman. Not the result you expected, did you? I know what you really meant but this race/ethnicity thing is a double edged sword.

Well you presumed wrong, and I can't understand how.
Is it not obvious, that considering everyone's opinion and trying to find a middleground, is longer and more difficult, thus expensive, than not having to do so ?

Not having to do so entails no one's opinion being considered except one. Even though everyone may have to bear the brunt of his decisions all the same.

This is not to say that management isn't possible. Soviet Union had factory managers too. The workers could always vote to remove them. That's what elected governments do. Manage so we don't have to. Under socialism using that position for your own advantage would be corruption. Under Capitalism it's just regular business done by business owners. Because under capitalism there is nothing left to corrupt since exploitation is literally legal.

 

[IWWorkER]

Your objection is that global organisation is impossible in and of itself. Not that global organisation via socialism is impossible. My answer is that we already are globally organised.

Dishonesty from a marxist, I should have expected it.

I'm not gonna bother reading further if thats how it is.

 

[Morro]

not these retarded communist again both capitalism and communism is controlled by jews its the same shit nigger that's why only viable solution is nationalist socialism. so you can get the best of both worlds.

Nationnal socialism is just Nazism, it has nothing to do with communism or socialism. The nazis called themselves socialists to trick men who where tired of war and wanted jobs to vote for them. Nazism is just a flavor of facism, which could basically be described as "super capitalism".

 

[Caesercel]

Dishonesty from a marxist, I should have expected it.

Oh puhleeze. The only reason I have as much patience for your utter bullshit as I do now is because I am saying these things to an audience who are programmed to have a sensitive knee jerk reaction when they read the words "Marx" or "communism". But if you are going to do it anyway then I might as well go full gloves off and call you out for it. It's not like I hope to "convert" anyone. People can read and contemplate any truth in all this for themselves, just like I did. And people ARE noticing


This is the same tier of retardation as "how can democracy be true if you can't ask everyone's opinion" , bloody hell.
My entire post there has the running theme of organisation. From factory managers to elected governments. Even the modern capitalist bourgeois system does not have a singular group of people controlling everything with unanimity. And yet it's a global (mostly) well organised system.

 

[IWWorkER]

And people ARE noticing

Yeah we are noticing you lie because you have no other way to push your propaganda, and you know nothing about what you are talking about.
I doubt you ever entered a factory once in your life.

 

[IWWorkER]

how can democracy be true if you can't ask everyone's opinion

Well ? How can it ?

 

[Caesercel]

Well ? How can it ?

Republican representation. It's not perfect but that fact doesn't lead to the conclusion that we'll now have to go back to aristocracy. Same goes for not fully realised Socialist systems and full blown Capitalism. As I said in my post about construction workers, this is the "ideal".

Yeah we are noticing you lie because you have no other way to push your propaganda, and you know nothing about what you are talking about.
I doubt you ever entered a factory once in your life.

>Muh propaganda

Just fucking lol. If you think you are being misrepresented then clarify instead of being an ass about it. Or just admit that you don't have a real point to make.

It's a funny thing about all socialism critiques that they always focus on the minutiae instead of looking at the bigger picture. And then proceed to throw the baby out with the bath water when their need for minutiae trivia clarity is not met sufficiently. These are the people who will tell you that since 100% democracy is tough to implement so we should be ruled by Kings instead. They do this because the logic of Socialism itself is rock solid.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the resources of a nation shouldn't belong to it's people. To it's PEOPLE, not a bunch of private owners with money and contacts. For all their harping on about muh soil muh people muh race muh Volk , the grifters that call themselves fascists cannot even offer this much because even they are slaves to Capitalism.

No minute technicality in LTV will change the fact that workers don't get full value of their labour output. No debate over methods of implementation/representation and headaches of management will change the fundamental fact that a worker run economy would be better for workers because it's literally being run by them.

 

[IWWorkER]

If you think you are being misrepresented then clarify

It was clear enough yet you managed to hear the complete opposite of what I said:

Do you think it is possible to organize   THIS on a national scale, let alone international ?

Your objection is that global organisation is impossible in and of itself. Not that global organisation via socialism is impossible.

Lying nigger.

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

Nazism

Which is preferable to whatever you shitskins are. Fucking animals. Niggers are more destructive to a city than actual nuclear bombs, as proven by comparing Niggertroit to Hiroshima today.

 

[Moth]

Capitalism won and we are slaves

 

[Caesercel]

Do you think it is possible to organize this on a national scale, let alone international ?

I don't see why not. At the very least workers can simply keep on doing what they've already been doing, only without the added disadvantage of having to provide for the existing economic inequalities through their labour.

Of course things don't end there and society would look nothing like what we have now. The idea is for workers to establish economic relations among themselves instead of acting as appendages to the economic relations between Capitalists. This doesn't mean everyone will have to know everything all at once and come to a unanimous decision like a hive mind. Even Capitalists don't do that, they just do their business dealings and the system arises from it. All they'll have to do is keep dealing with whoever they actually need to deal with on a day to day basis and let a government arise out of that. So just like what we have today but without the Capitalism part.

The part about different systems arising from different base economic relations would be covered in my next thread.

 

[literallyretarded]

I don't see why not. At the very least workers can simply keep on doing what they've already been doing, only without the added disadvantage of having to provide for the existing economic inequalities through their labour.

Of course things don't end there and society would look nothing like what we have now. The idea is for workers to establish economic relations among themselves instead of acting as appendages to the economic relations between Capitalists. This doesn't mean everyone will have to know everything all at once and come to a unanimous decision like a hive mind. Even Capitalists don't do that, they just do their business dealings and the system arises from it. All they'll have to do is keep dealing with whoever they actually need to deal with on a day to day basis and let a government arise out of that. So just like what we have today but without the Capitalism part.

The part about different systems arising from different base economic relations would be covered in my next thread.

i challenge you to go and read or watch national socialist works like mien kampf or europa the last battle and you still wont answer me if communism is a jewish ideology or not.

 

[literallyretarded]

Nationnal socialism is just Nazism, it has nothing to do with communism or socialism. The nazis called themselves socialists to trick men who where tired of war and wanted jobs to vote for them. Nazism is just a flavor of facism, which could basically be described as "super capitalism".

are you retarded super capitalism nazi Germany was a utopia hitler brought back to life a destroyed economy he complete rebuilt Germany from the ground up and he succeeded wonderfully the Germany economy was amazing after Hitler. go read any nazi books or films or even go to a Nazi forum like fashfront. they are all against capitalism because we know that capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin that coin being jewish. all of the elites and mega companies in the capitalistic west are jewish and guess what communism that's also Jewish as it was founded by jews marx was 100% jewish for jews and they used communism to kill millions of white Russians than white Germans. you communist are retarded slaves to the jews you are good little goys

 

[Morro]

are you retarded super capitalism nazi Germany was a utopia hitler brought back to life a destroyed economy he complete rebuilt Germany from the ground up and he succeeded wonderfully the Germany economy was amazing after Hitler. go read any nazi books or films or even go to a Nazi forum like fashfront. they are all against capitalism because we know that capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin that coin being jewish. all of the elites and mega companies in the capitalistic west are jewish and guess what communism that's also Jewish as it was founded by jews marx was 100% jewish for jews and they used communism to kill millions of white Russians than white Germans. you communist are retarded slaves to the jews you are good little goys

 

[literallyretarded]

you are retarded how about you go and read some nazi Literature and enlighten your self instead of being slave to isreal.

 

[IWWorkER]

I don't see why not.

Yeah I noticed. It's clear you have never worked in your life.

I will juts take an easy example to illustrate.
In a worker-owned communist factory, some worker think replacing some piece of machinery would be a good idea, while other don't. (The new machine is too expensive to be bought by just one person, and even if it was not, it would be illegal under communist law.)

How do they decide whether to buy it or not ?
By voting ? If so, this would still be imposing a decision to (some of) the workers.
Would these unsatify workers be allowed to leave the company and make their own again ? This would be back to capitalism, in a way.

This problem does not happen with private ownership of the means of production.
The capitalists chose to buy the machine or not, and the workers are free to leave if they disagree with the decision.
I would add that the workers can join each others the express their disagreement, and even threaten to abandon the company.
This is what unions are (or rather were) for.

Finally, you also have a very naive view of capitalists, you seem to think they just do nothing all they long and a paycheck falls in their pockets at the end of the month.
This might be the case for some, but not for most. Most capitalists still work, not with their hands sure, but management, economic decisions, logistics, finding clients or parteners, etc, is all necessary work, and yes, capitalists often do lots of this themselves.

This is not to defend capitalism, I'm not a capitalist, nor even right-wing, I'm just aknowledging that this world is more complexe than many claim to be.
"Capitalists vs proletariat" is not much different from "jews vs goyim", we can find easy arguments for both, but if you look deeper and more seriously, it's more complexe than "good guys vs bad guys"
I based my world view not on what I read but what I observe, I don't care about workers' rights because I've read books about it but because I'm a worker, I have seen what working conditions are like, and I know what I really want, I don't need Marx or anyone else to tell me what my problems and needs are.

Have a good day/night.

 

[literallyretarded]

Yeah I noticed. It's clear you have never worked in your life.

I will juts take an easy example to illustrate.
In a worker-owned communist factory, some worker think replacing some piece of machinery would be a good idea, while other don't. (The new machine is too expensive to be bought by just one person, and even if it was not, it would be illegal under communist law.)

How do they decide whether to buy it or not ?
By voting ? If so, this would still be imposing a decision to (some of) the workers.
Would these unsatify workers be allowed to leave the company and make their own again ? This would be back to capitalism, in a way.

This problem does not happen with private ownership of the means of production.
The capitalists chose to buy the machine or not, and the workers are free to leave if they disagree with the decision.
I would add that the workers can join each others the express their disagreement, and even threaten to abandon the company.
This is what unions are (or rather were) for.

Finally, you also have a very naive view of capitalists, you seem to think they just do nothing all they long and a paycheck falls in their pockets at the end of the month.
This might be the case for some, but not for most. Most capitalists still work, not with their hands sure, but management, economic decisions, logistics, finding clients or parteners, etc, is all necessary work, and yes, capitalists often do lots of this themselves.

This is not to defend capitalism, I'm not a capitalist, nor even right-wing, I'm just aknowledging that this world is more complexe than many claim to be.
"Capitalists vs proletariat" is not much different from "jews vs goyim", we can find easy arguments for both, but if you look deeper and more seriously, it's more complexe than "good guys vs bad guys"
I based my world view not on what I read but what I observe, I don't care about workers' rights because I've read books about it but because I'm a worker, I have seen what working conditions are like, and I know what I really want, I don't need Marx or anyone else to tell me what my problems and needs are.

Have a good day/night.

ceasercell is getting shit on rightfully so.