Watching Marxist videos has ruined my mind.

[based_meme]

It's untrue that the success or failure of a business is inconsequential to a worker.

Insofar as the business is concerned, it is inconsequential. I don't know why you're saying otherwise. If you want to argue that they'd be out of a job, yes, they might get laid off, but that's a comparably minor setback relative to going bankrupt.

And them not having a stake in it is exactly what Marx takes issue with. The fundamental question is, where did this situation come from? The capitalist-labour relationship is a posteriori to human condition and recently came about due to historical circumstances which enriched one side at the expense of the other. Besides, I have already posted a break down of the labour market elsewhere. So moving on.

How exactly is that relationship a posteriori to the human condition? What does that sentence even mean?

Uhhhh. What even is this? So three guys who were born into the right economic class, to be able to start a business or invest in one, hire a fourth guy, who doesn't have that , and now get to exploit him by deciding "what they think the labour shoul cost"?

Wait, what are you doing? Why are you injecting your own biased assumptions into the example? Why are you assuming that they're all rich and born into wealth? You know that people can take business loans or work to save up capital, right?

If Emmanuel had the capital, he would start his own business and become competition. Or he would invest in the business himself and become a fourth partner. Thus taking his rightful 25% . He would never let them steal his work. Why is it that in this hypothetical only one guy doesn't possess Capital. It is the answer to these questions where Marxist critique takes off.

The "why" doesn't matter, it's irrelevant. He simply doesn't have the money to partner up, even if the other three were open to taking on a fourth partner. I just happened to arbitrarily pick the fourth guy as the (external) laborer and not a business partner.

You seem to be under the impression that by rephrasing the situation with words like "agreement" and pretending that the capitalist and worker come from equal footing, you can make the exploitation disappear. I mean, you can go full clasisst and say that there's nothing unfair about the starkly unequal footing between those two. That it's perfectly fine that few people have all the access to the means of production (abstracted as Capital) while the rest don't.

I didn't say anything about "equal footing." I've made no claims that any such agreements between them means that the two parties are now equal. Remember that I explicitly mentioned before how a power asymmetry (resources in this case) needs to exist for such relationships to be occur, else the laborer would have no financial incentive to sell his labor and instead do business for himself.

But isn't that what Marx is criticising about Capitalism in the first place? Oppression and exploitation under a class system. In all your arguments you run into the fallacy of presupposing the Capitalist system to justify itself. No deeper investigation needed. Why is it that most of the wealth and capital is concentrated in the hands of 5% of people? Why is it that workers don't have the Capital to get full output from their work, and have to agree to someone else's labour market who rob them. Why is it that even if all the workers pooled all of their wealth it still wouldn't be enough to buy out the very businesses that survive
off their back. Why is it that among 4 guys, it was Emmanuel who didn't own a cobble shop or couldn't invest in one

I don't understand how can you sit there and say that I'm presupposing capitalism to justify itself when in order to argue the Marxist position you have to do the same thing, but with supposing that "all profit is theft of labor value" is true instead.

What did I presuppose about capitalism and what exactly did I justify with it?

Every exploitative system can be justified by its own internal logic. And if everyone thought like this we'd still be living under some form of feudalism or colonialism (makes little difference to me but that's the position Marx is coming from in 1848, half a century after french revolution and right in the middle of european one)

Did you understand from the previous post where I explained that exploitative does not automatically mean "unfair," and that "unfair" does not automatically mean that it's "unethical?"

There's nothing "vague" or "nebulous" about it. Read it as the "price" of the product, as decided by the market, if you want. That'll save your breath on another one of those pointless autistic fixation on semantics (as if me not using the words "value" or "worth" will make exploitation go away)

You introduced the phrase, so you need to define it and be specific. I'm not going to insert my own meaning into that.

Marx believed that labour should get paid with the full price of their product in the market anyway, and I'm sure you've criticised this elsewhere. So fine by me.

If that's what you meant by it, I don't know why you used the term effort. The effort of labor is not proportional to its value. A whore lying on her back and servicing men doesn't take much effort, but she sure as shit makes more money faking orgasms in the starfish position than some sand or curry grinding a work shift at a store or restaurant.

And one of those power moves could be workers realising that the product that enriches the Capitalist cannot exist without their work, and natural resources which exist despite the Capitalist, and using that to take over the means of production (or its softer version in Unionisation, which is still anti-thetical to capitalist free market, if not capitalist ownership). But to capitalism this would be "unfair" because you cannot steal someone's property.

How is unionisation stealing property?

Therefore, Capitalism insists upon its own ideas of fairness-

Keep entire generations of workers in destitution and dependent on wageslavery for survival, while taking the biggest share of humanity's output - fair

Stealing a Capitalist's property - unfair

Drop the word captalism/capitalist and you have "stealing is unfair."

I am not arguing in favour of stealing but according to Marx, the former too entails a form of stealing, but not defined to be so under Capitalism's own "rules of the game"(the rules that you speak of). Which exist to serve no one but the capitalist himself.

You're talking as though a group of rich people conspired to create this rigged system with broken rules. The basic tenets of capitalism™ (private property, profit, wage labor) has existed for as long as people have been doing commerce. The kind of unfair things you're alluding to and witnessing in the current day (leverage through capital) is not an intrinsic feature of things like owning private property and making profit.

As long as it's true that-

A. Capitalist have all the leverage in deciding wages as the owners of means of production (Capital).

B. The Capitalist labour market puts a downward pressure on wages, as everyone wants to get the best deal (as you so aptly pointed out)...

But it's not true that the ones holding the capital have all of the leverage in deciding wages. They're subject to the same market forces as well, unless you're implying that they control that by virtue of having capital.

This is probably a large part of the reason why there's so much immigration being pushed into Western countries. The corporations need to flood the market with cheap labor to depress wages. In a roundabout way, I guess you could say that they're using their capital to manipulate the labor market, but not directly (they're getting their cronies in governments to do it for them).

Misery and Pain, will always exist under capitalism. You can have the sweetest most benevolent Capitalist on the planet and he'll still pay his workers no more than the market average. (Usually just enough so that their destitute lives can trod along in the slums of Mumbai). If the Capitalist doesn't do that he'll be undercut by competition and go out of business. If cheap child labour or 12 hour work day is the new trend in the market he'll have to adjust to it.

Misery and pain aren't functions of capitalism (nor is it the goal), but they can be consequences of it. However, it's not necessarily true that it "will always exist."

The evil and selfishness does not exist despite the system. It's a core feature of it. There's a reason why so many CEOs are psychopaths. Capitalism rewards this behaviour.

Selfishness is a core feature of it, yes, because it's an adversarial game where the object is to get more points than the other guy. In order to be competitive you need to be selfish. Note that selfishness is not intrinsically a bad or evil thing. Evil is a moral valuation and doesn't factor into the game. It's not a part of it at all. That isn't to say that evil doesn't happen, but to say that it's a feature is incorrect.

Morality is not inherent to capitalism, because it's an economic system, not a moral one. (It's ridiculous that that sentence needs to be written.)

Capitalism is maintained by a system of state violence or atleast a threat of it. Which the Capitalists hand waves away as "laws and rules" of market. And as I pointed out before, they are built to favour the capitalists in the guise of fairness and free market.

Though that doesn't mean capitalists don't practice direct violence all the time wherever they can get away with it. Maybe not in western nations where they delegate the violence to the State. All communism asks for is for workers to strike back.

This is just a case of those in power sanctifying their use of force on those without it. To keep hold onto the means of production. Using the police, the army and the bureaucratic apparatus. American jails are filled with working class criminals and not wall street frauds, who still walk free. And the worst , most criminal aspects of capitalism are "legal" anyway.

This is a disingenuous point. Everything under the state's law is maintained by the threat of violence and supervenes on any system and set of rules beneath it. The economic system of capitalism is not a special case.

I'm not sure if you realize it, but the third paragraph is actually an argument against government. Just change "means of production" to "monopoly on force" and you're practically there.

Huh. So worker's who put in labour on a property do have the right of ownership to that property.

Didn't know Locke was based like that.

That's not how that works, but go ahead and enjoy the witty moment.

The "virtue" here is a specific statement on who gets what from the productive output, by the virtue of their place in the capitalist class system. And you yourself claim that the owner class should get most of it. Thus making a financial evaluation of that virtue. Don't confuse this with the general sense of ethical virtue (I can sense that you might go into another one of those semantic diversions instead of sticking to the point at hand)

If you don't care for the semantics, then don't use a word that's also commonly used for the ethical meaning when your position (or the one you're advocating for) is motivated by ethical reasons.

Idc if Marx was the King of France. As long as Capitalism exists, his critique of it will ring true. These are nothing but observations into the situation at hand. Which requires nothing more than a single honest look at the state of the modern world.

If you say so.

Many things can ring true, if you hold other parts of it or preceding it to be true.

Isn't that what the thread is about? In our society getting rich through a successful venture is considered the greatest personal achievement. So exploitation becomes the holy grail. Everybody wants to do what one of those guys did. Be the one in a million who crawls out and joins the elite.

The thing is, it is indeed possible for everyone to have a certain degree of wealth and comfort in life. The only force blocking the path is Capitalism.

Forget the thread, I don't even know what this part of the reply is supposed to be about or where you're going with it. Looks like just another excuse to bring up exploitation again.

I was making commentary about how this particular flavor of moral outrage frequently takes a back seat when personal sacrifices have to be made when the principles that are championed are put to the test. This is common with pro-communist types who ironically live comfortable and relatively prosperous lives under capitalist systems.

Irrelevant. I don't have to hate Capitalism to point out the fact that the labour markets are exploitative. I don't even have to hate exploitation as a concept.

I know that most Capitalists are hypocrites who would turn their heads to what they cause and proceed to live in oblioviousness. But I don't work that way. In any situation I'd rather admit (atleast to myself or anonymous forums) that I'm evil rather than engaging in fallacious rhetoric to save face.

This is some "muh envy" tier response and this discussion is poorer for it. It's ironic you'd go there just after pointing out that Marx and Engels were both bourgeois

Oh wow, you really outdid yourself here. Not only did you level up your moral grandstanding, but you projected your own "fallacious rhetoric to save face" (which I didn't do) and passive-aggressively called me an evil hypocrite, all in one fell swoop.

Then you have the gall to talk about how my commentary on Marx's status in life makes the discussion poorer when you're insulting me directly. JFL

>It's fair because I said so

It's funny how one literally can't justify this.

I get the sense you have this preconceived notion that capitalism was concocted by rich people who got together and decided what's fair and what isn't.

More importantly, the fairness in question is about the rules of the game, not any natural or material advantages. You're crying about the latter when it's the former that principally matters.

You will always have Bobby Fischers and Michael Jordans emerge. You want to sit there and cry about how that's unfair to their opponents? Really?

I guess, I can set up a CS:GO match where one team is 50% slower by design. Has access to shittier weapons choices and forced to play on laggy computers and then call it a "fair" match because none of the teams are using cheat bots.

Terrible analogy. Here you're intentionally handicapping one side and changing the rules of the competition.

Marx's critique of capitalism flows directly from his premise.

Of course, it does. That's by design.

And his premise comes directly from the natural relationship between human work and it's product. The fact that human work creates commodity for humans to use is immutable, whether you live under communism, capitalism, socialism ,feudalism, tribal commune, rural commune or any other system. This fundamental fact precludes the system of governance or economy. So deciding the system becomes a matter of exactly what is to be produced how this fruit of human work is distributed.

Yes, and the most sensible way to distribute that fruit is based on economic concepts in capitalism that involve things like risk share.

This is probably a good time to mention something that I'm surprised wasn't obvious to you from the get-go. You can have exactly the kind of distributional arrangement that you're a proponent of. There is literally nothing in capitalism that says, "no, you can't distribute the fruits of labor equally to all laborers." That option is technically open, IFF all parties agree to it. They probably won't in reality, because the people taking the risk would be correct in saying they deserve a bigger share. But still, the possibility is there.

And there we are again. Fairness. They all decide between themselves what's fair for them, just like they always have. You can enter into any kind of business contract you so wish to choose, provided it's within the legal boundaries, of course (goes without saying).

Capitalism,like other classist positions argues that most of it should land in the hands of few. Marxism holds the ethical position, born from egalitarianism, that it should benefit everyone. You can reject the latter if you want. It's your choice

Now you're assuming the moral goodness of communism - a politico-economic ideology that advocates for theft and violence. Amazing. Utterly and stupefyingly amazing.

It's quite something how Marx put a spell on so many people the world over and charmed them with his nonsense (this tracks, if you accept the satanic roots of Marxism). I have to think you're fully on board with it yourself, else you wouln't be so fervently and staunchly advocating for it.

Is it true? Are you a full-blown communist at heart now?

But in doing so you are also arguing for the opposite capitalist position. Which is essentially a classist position in disguise. The idea that certain lucky ones should have control over all of the products of human effort , while the rest should make do with whatever the elite class throws at them. (the exact mechanism through which this situation is reached is irrelevant, labour market or whatever. Added this part in case you go "muh fair labour market" on me again.) That classist exploitation is A-ok and there's nothing unethical, unjust or unfair about it. Or it's not exploitation at all

Classism? Now you're just throwing shit out there and hoping something will stick. It wont, but the smell will still be there.

Class differences are emergent in capitalism (not a feature), but that remains a farcry from classism, which is active prejudice and discrimination based on class.

If you believe that a feudal Lord taking away most of the agricultural produce of the peasants toiling on his fields is fair, sure.

If you believe that plantation owners buying and using slaves as property and not paying them wages is ethical, be my guest

If you believe a colonialist has the right to cut off some native's hands because he didn't produce the required output that day. K.

You just implied that being pro-capitalist means you're pro-feudalist, pro-slavery, and pro-colonialism. You truly went full-retard here.

Or are you merely resorting to attempts at character assassination now? I don't believe in any of those things. But you already knew that and wanted to try and put me on the defensive backpedal with those insinuations.

If you disagree with all of these systems, but are favourable to capitalism then it becomes a matter of what flavour of classism you like. Though you won't find many takers for this position, even among the (hypocritical) capitalists of today.

If by classism you're referring to the fact that there exists classes in societies, then this will be true in all economic and political systems. If you by classism, you mean the primary definition - prejudice and discrimination based on class - then you're inserting your own assumption of prejudice and discrimination where (by default) there is none.

I'd personally put any system that deliberately and by design spreads misery to many for the luxuries of the few as exploitative and unethical. That a system of dealership which permanently puts one side at a stark disadvantage, by design, is unfair. But since you start with the position of defending classism, you'd just reject any such definition for any of these words. And call any criticism "muh envy" . Further, pointing out the real unethical consequences of these systems (like misery and pain) would be met with pointless rhetoric ("moral grandstanding", "champagne socialist") instead of real argumentation.

I don't, but I'd like to see where you take these strawmans.

In which case Marx would be justified to tell workers to use direct action since talking to Capitalists would be fruitless. They'll never admit anything wrong is going on, since the entire thing benefits them. And all their selective usage of words and definitions like "exploitation" or "fairness" will reflect that they think elitism is ok and these words don't apply to it. That any destitution caused by a system which benefits them is "fair". And any subsequent misery and pain is "ethical". Go ahead, call it moral grandstanding. That's what you usually do when faced with the unethical consequences of capitalism, that go beyond economic theft(which you reject as an concept), and into the misery and poverty brought about as a direct result of that theft.

tl;dr: Be violent and steal shit, because you think it's unfair that others have more than you. Then turn around and claim that it was morally justfied, because unfair advantage 'n stuff.

I should comment on this. Every rule or law that benefits the workers in any way shape or form (limited working hours etc) is fundamentally anti-capitalist and anti-free market by nature.

Yes, but not quite. Rules and laws imposed on the free market (regulation) do intentionally stifle and restrict it. This is always true, by definition, but also by the simple observation that the free market would be less free as a result (no shit, right?).

However, the rules are for the benefit of all (both in theory and in practice), black pilled cynicism on the realities of business and politics notwithstanding.

This is true. The problem occurs when you add this to the concentration of Capital and means of production in the hands of a few elites. And so they hold all the power AND make deals by the incentive that you just mentioned

You're talking about crony capitalism there. The economic system is supposed to be subordinate to the political system, which is where things like the labor and consumer protection laws enter the picture to prevent the very thing you're mentioning, namely holding all of the power. You're forgetting that governments can and do put pressure on businesses quite frequently and do things like increase the minimum wage (before you say it, I'm already aware that it's not a livable in many cases).

So basically people will screw each other to their own benefit. I mean, that's true. But Capitalism has turned this into its central tenet. I'd rather prefer a system that atleast pretends to not be evil. A representation of worst human tendencies.

Being in competition to win is not intrinsically evil. You can win by being good, evil, or morally neutral. Morality is irrelevant within the confines of the game. Making the best decisions to win (within the rules of the game, it must be especially noted) shouldn't be morally apologetic, as morality has no right to demand an answer from it, but people (yourself and many others) continue to insist on superimposing moral valuations on game-theoretical utility maximization.

Well I must applaud you for being somewhat intellectually honest here. But according to the Capitalist logic that you champion, the immigrants are not being exploited at all. The Capitalist is just getting the "best deal", and all parties "agree" to the terms. The only advantage I can think of for local labours is that they are better aware of their rights and better equipped with socialist/Marxist rhetoric regarding worker's rights to demand fair wages and dignified livable conditions . Even if they believe in capitalist ownership of private property.

Oh no, they are most definitely being exploited and not just in the way I've been conveying it. In this particular instance the exploitation would be unfair, and thus unethical. The way in which the exploitation remains fair is if the employers respect the workers' rights and don't take advantage of the workers' ignorance of their own worker's rights.

If the world was left entirely to Capitalists, we'd be seeing white people shitting on train tracks in the slums of Vancouver. Since fundamentally anti-capitalist, anti-'free labour market' policies prevented that, Capitalists can now have Indians shit the streets instead. God knows they are used to it.

Top fucking KEK, but just so we're clear, White people poor and Brown people poor are very much not the same. That absolutely includes street shitting.

Oh let me correct myself. Historical advantages of colonialism do factor into it.

It's implicit in the system. Naivety won't serve your point. And attempts at reframing the situation to hide underlying material realities won't make them go away.

Just like "exploitation" and "fairness" , a Capitalist might selectively use (or rather selectively omit) the word extortion to his advantage. "Oh its not real extortion". "The worker can simply reject the wage if he thinks it's unfair, and starve to death. It's his choice"

OK, but we're talking about words here. Words contain concepts, traits, and descriptions, which make up their definitions. When you use the word "extortion" that word has a very specific meaning, which involves criminal use of force to take people's property against their will (kind of - no, a LOT like taxes).

You can't just make up your own definitions for existing words and use them as you see fit. That's what these woke, SJW, gender bender faggots do. Don't be like them.

People usually just accept things for how they are. Black slaves, in the end, did not free themselves. That's why Marx argues for workers to develop class consciousness.

Black slaves is your other example of exploitative and fair? Is that your final answer? You can phone a friend or ask the audience.

Nice.

Thank you.

But Capitalism in itself is an alienating force.

Yes.

Under Capitalism, it's every man for himself. And the only thing binding them into any kind of collaboration or solidarity is money.

Yes.

Sure you may argue that any man who collaborates in a tribe has selfish goals for doing so too. But there's also a sense of genuine camaraderie, which is missing in Capitalism. Even when there are heirarchies one can have loyalty towards their master and benevolence towards their subject. But Capitalism pits capitalist against capitalist, worker against worker, capitalist against worker.

Yes.

It's a genuinely bleak miserable system, even for the Capitalist , and I can see why people living under capitalism cope with alienated commodities, notwithstanding where they lie on the class scale.

Perhaps.

You can observe that alienating lonely misery in this very forum.

Yes, there's a very interesting parallel between the wealth accumulation and relative wealth disparity between the ultra rich and the middle/poor class compared to the accumulation of sexual interest and attraction disparity between chads and us here.

Jordan Peterson, like you, hates Marxism. But unlike you, he recognises it as a class system (actually I'm not sure what your position here is. But you do talk all the typical classist talking points). So he justifies capitalist classism by saying that all animals have some heirarchies and it is inherent to our nature. He shows that even lobsters have heirarchies.

That's what I'm referring to. I thought you'd be aware of this meme.

I see. Well, just so we're clear, for the record, let it be known, as God is my witness, I'm not a classist. I don't believe that rich people are superior for being rich and should be treated better by virtue of being rich, and I don't believe that poor people are inferior for being poor and should be treated worse by virtue of being poor.

That is classism.

It's always better to ask questions than load up the assumption gun and fire away.

 

[Rapistcel]

>watching Jewish slop
>feel depressed

Color me surprised

 

[m3nt4Lbl0ck3d]

Live within your means, live for yourself, there is so many things in this world you simply do not need.

You can live a fruitful life through hard work and discipline. Greed is completely unnecessary and exactly why we're in this predicament in the first place.

 

[sexualeconomist]

I used to want to be successful and take part in material pleasures. But now I see that that glamour, that dream is not possible without exploitation of others. And it's not something that can be controlled by altruistic policies. It's inherent to the system. Just fundamentally evil.

alright give me all your money and kill yourself

 

[Caesercel]

alright give me all your money and kill yourself

Send me you bank account

 

[manletcel1488]

People at the top are needed to be leaders and to organize workers, they don't literally do nothing and get paid off exploiting people, assuming they are actually doing their job and aren't in a bullshit position.
It's fine for people at the top to make more than others imo, although the distribution of resources is currently too much at the top of things imo.
Why would anyone take risks or volunteer to be leaders if there wasn't an incentive to do so?
I'm not defending the current system by the way, I just think ultimately leaders are nessacarcy and they should make more than others.

 

[Caesercel]

People at the top are needed to be leaders and to organize workers, they don't literally do nothing and get paid off exploiting people, assuming they are actually doing their job and aren't in a bullshit position.

The nature of decision making and human heirarchies is not something I discount. And I don't claim this puzzle is easy to solve. The people at the top organise others to do things for them, it's their primary role. And it is exactly this control which also allows them to take the best for themselves. It's been true even for socialist/communist nations. This much I had already deduced back in college.

Why would anyone take risks or volunteer to be leaders if there wasn't an incentive to do so?

I don't think it's a choice everyone has. Besides the fact that not everyone can be a leader , certain systems don't even allow most to have that opportunity. Like say feudalism, wherein the best you can hope for is becoming a local knight if born in peasentry.

, I just think ultimately leaders are nessacarcy and they should make more than others.

I don't necessarily disagree with either takes. Whether they should make more than others or not, to me, is a mute question because people in power naturally are in a position to abuse it for themselves.

In my country's government with socialist virtues, the top beareaucrats make more than the common office clerk (as you suggest) . But not THAT much more. Compare that to private corporations where the difference between leadership and common worker is night and day, (even among employees). But those beareaucrats make up for it by taking bribes and general corruption. So it's hard to prevent people in power from using it to advance themselves

 

[based_meme]

@Caesercel If you're not going to reply, at least tell us if you're now a bona fide, card-carrying communist now.

 

[Caesercel]

@Caesercel If you're not going to reply, at least tell us if you're now a bona fide, card-carrying communist now.

I wouldn't call myself a communist because I don't buy anarchism. And I just been busy with a few things so didn't read all posts

 

[based_meme]

I wouldn't call myself a communist because I don't buy anarchism.

You're not on board with communism because you don't agree with anarchism? I don't understand the connection.

And I just been busy with a few things so didn't read all posts

 

[Caesercel]

You're not on board with communism because you don't agree with anarchism? I don't understand the connection.

Isn't communism advocating for a state less society? I'm not sure how that would work

 

[based_meme]

Isn't communism advocating for a state less society? I'm not sure how that would work

Classless society with no private property. In theory also stateless, but the state in some form or another will always exist, since there will always be a need and a means to organize and direct people. If humans had the ability to operate telepathically like in a hivemind, then government wouldn't be necessary, as enough people would know what to do and come together to do it.

 

[DarkStar]

Woah didnt realize just a causal, offhanded statement about watching Marxian content seemingly would spark such an intensive debate

I will give a read later @based_meme

I wouldn't call myself a communist because I don't buy anarchism.

What would you call yourself then? You also do realize the concept of socialism, which I advocate for, has existed before that of Communism & sadly was corrupted by it.

 

[Caesercel]

Maybe a toy example will help to illustrate my point. Suppose the service you offer involves a risk that's net neutral 90% of the time but loses you 100 dollars 10% of the time. I'm saying it's only fair customers pay at least 10 dollars to make sure you at least break even on average. that's all I'm saying. that's what I meant by recompense for risks. It's also why I used the word recompense instead of a word like reward.

I see what you are proposing. But that is not how capitalist profit functions.

Maybe my view is too Dutch, but in the Netherlands it's not easy or cheap to lay off employees. C

That is an inherently anti-Capitalist policy in and of itself. The law might as well have been written by Marx himself

More importantly though, not every business owner is a millionaire. Plenty of shops are run by small business owners. You think they can afford to pay 2 years of full salary in exchange for jack diddly squat? I'd say they run the biggest risks.

Sure. But I'd presume that in developed economies most people are working for large corporations. And most of the industrial work is taken up by such corporations.

farming is innately riskful, so I'd argue that we do ipso facto pay farmers for taking risks. If we were to only pay farmers for their produce, how would they survive if harvests fails due to nationwide drought?

That's how you get an economic recession. The bigger picture here is that in case of a drought EVERYONE starves, not just farmers. Otherwise an economy will always require the agricultural produce to feed the current level of population. Which means that the farmers will (on an average) always find buyers for their produce. Usually its over production which poses the bigger risk to their purse. If there's perpetually produce deficiency, the population levels will have to re-adjust.

This has no bearing on the fundamental fact that people are paid for making and selling stuff, and not taking risk. And the profits are not calculated as instruments of risk mitigation as you previously posited.

better according to you

It was a rhetorical question. I can look at a lot of the stuff that goes around me and say that anything would be better for these people than the current system.

these don't answer the question "where should money for investments come from?" I agree those thing would be great, but long-term feasibility is what I'm worried about.

From the capitalist purse of course. I believe Netherlands has maintained a fine balance regarding that. The rich are rich but they still have to pay up to ensure that the rest are living good lives too.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

But that is not how capitalist profit functions

I wasn't talking about profit there.

That is an inherently anti-Capitalist policy in and of itself. The law might as well have been written by Marx himself

Trust me, Dutch laws are too coddling of employees. Don't like your job? Why leave of your own accord when you can be so little productive that your employers will give you several salaries just for you to vacate your spot? We also have too many cases of people who've been erroneously declared unfit to work. My mom has known plenty such women personally.

Sure. But I'd presume that in developed economies most people are working for large corporations. And most of the industrial work is taken up by such corporations.

If you count the government as a large corporation maybe.

That's how you get an economic recession. The bigger picture here is that in case of a drought EVERYONE starves, not just farmers. Otherwise an economy will always require the agricultural produce to feed the current level of population. Which means that the farmers will (on an average) always find buyers for their produce. Usually its over production which poses the bigger risk to their purse. If there's perpetually produce deficiency, the population levels will have to re-adjust.

This has no bearing on the fundamental fact that people are paid for making and selling stuff, and not taking risk.

You ignore the possibilities of reserves and import. Your argument also doesn't apply to noncritical goods I don't think.

And the profits are not calculated as instruments of risk mitigation as you previously posited.

I never meant to claim this. I've been trying to make that clear awhile now. Please stop.

From the capitalist purse of course. I believe Netherlands has maintained a fine balance regarding that. The rich are rich but they still have to pay up to ensure that the rest are living good lives too.

the Netherlands is a perennial top 10 tax haven. I also recall hearing that the average Italian has more savings than the average Dutchman. Our government just takes way to much money (all to funnel it to BlackCock of course).

 

[ogercel]

>watching Jewish slop
>feel depressed

Color me surprised

 

[LeonTheSilent]

But you did not need to whatch comunist videos to see this.

 

[Caesercel]

but that's a comparably minor setback relative to going bankrupt.

I disagree. Most people with enough capital to own businesses, especially at the high scale will never end up materially as bad as the average "employed" worker, no matter how much they fail. I am not even going to compare them to the unemployed homeless workers because that's too absurd to even tackle. You can argue that the capitalist lost "more" but what does that mean in a world where some people have everything and the rest barely nothing.

How exactly is that relationship a posteriori to the human condition? What does that sentence even mean?

Liberal capitalists presume that Capitalism and the labour market is something that'll naturally come about if the logic of free market and private property is applied to humans. As if it's human nature to act that way. The socialist critique is that this relationship did not come from acting on ideal beliefs but from material circumstances of the various actors involved, which were specific to our history. And their liberal capitalist ideology and laws are a consequence of those material realities. Besides some exceptions people who are part of the working class stay in the working class for generations. Same for capitalists who had early advantage. (btw this does not mean that the effect of ideology on people is ignored, it's a feedback cycle)

Even the capitalist global trade network of today carries the shadow of colonial trade networks of past within it. Because it was born from it historically. WTO says it's supposed to be free (from tariffs) but doesn't explain how people in resource rich African countries end up living in poverty under this "free" system. The point is that you cannot just conjure up 4 people and arbitrarily assume that 3 of them have capital while 1 doesn't. There's a historical material reason for this circumstance. (btw very apt choice of name "emmanuel" for the fourth guy, really drives home the point about systematic inequality)

Why are you assuming that they're all rich and born into wealth? You know that people can take business loans or work to save up capital, right?

It was your argument that 3 of them had wealth to open up a business while the 4th one didn't. The 4th guy can too take business loans or save up capital if that means he makes more than being other 3's employee. Its obvious that the 4 dudes must not start off from an equal position for your example to work.

The "why" doesn't matter, it's irrelevant. He simply doesn't have the money to partner up, even if the other three were open to taking on a fourth partner. I just happened to arbitrarily pick the fourth guy as the (external) laborer and not a business partner.

This is EXACTLY the kind of capitalist blindness that Marx and others critique

>it doesn't matter bro
>don't question where I got my wealth from bro
>don't try to investigate the differences in our historical and material circumstances bro
>just accept that NOW we have a free and fair market and you can choose to work for me for pennies or go homeless.

" I've made no claims that any such agreements between them means that the two parties are now equal. Remember that I explicitly mentioned before how a power asymmetry (resources in this case) needs to exist for such relationships to be occur, else the laborer would have no financial incentive to sell his labor and instead do business for himself.

Agreed.

I don't understand how can you sit there and say that I'm presupposing capitalism to justify itself when in order to argue the Marxist position you have to do the same thing, but with supposing that "all profit is theft of labor value" is true instead.

What did I presuppose about capitalism and what exactly did I justify with it?

I offer arguments for why profit is a theft of labour. As a counter you pre-suppose that the capitalist system is fair.....based on what? Certainly not on the basis of the systematic inequality that exists between a business owner and his worker, which is necessary for capitalism to even work. (btw this was a rhetorical question, since we already know all the liberal talking points blind to historic material realities)

Did you understand from the previous post where I explained that exploitative does not automatically mean "unfair," and that "unfair" does not automatically mean that it's "unethical?"

So, it comes down to a matter of difference in ethics then. Well, Marx did say that change will not come from above. And it's especially bleak when people who are not even part of the "above" hold such values. Though in my post I didn't call feudalism or colonialism unethical or unfair. I just pointed out that to critique a system one must think outside the bounds of its internal ethical logic towards more fundamental positions. Positions like, "exploitation is bad"

If that's what you meant by it, I don't know why you used the term effort. The effort of labor is not proportional to its value. A whore lying on her back and servicing men doesn't take much effort, but she sure as shit makes more money faking orgasms in the starfish position than some sand or curry grinding a work shift at a store or restaurant.

Tbh this is something I too am trying to wrap my head around. I know that the capitalist argument that it's all about demand and supply doesn't work. Some people say that exchange value would translate to price only in an equilibrium, which I guess makes sense but I'm still not too sure of. This line of reasoning would mean that the exchange value of a labour is always subsistence level. And its demand/supply which then fluctuates the price to its current rate. Which would explain why some whores make good money for their service. Another point is that a whore might require extra upkeep costs thus adding to exchange value itself.

As for the effort part, I only used that word very loosely as meaning work or labour. For the whore laying on her back one can say that it's not physical energy expended but socially necessary labour time which matters economically speaking. Having said that, my personal advice is to find the whores who work for you. Will always be worth it.

How is unionisation stealing property?

The Capitalist might zealously argue that the labour is stealing away his profits by forming unions and refusing to work without higher pay. Profit which might've been used to buy up more assets/means of production to expand the business

So, they're not essentially taking over the means of production but it's still teetering on the borders. One can turn this argument on its head to say that if workers can unite to force higher pay, then they can take a step further and unite to overthrow Capital itself and take over the means of production. The only thing stopping them are property rights, which are a part of capitalism's internal logic and law anyway so who cares if the intention itself is to overthrow Capital.

Drop the word captalism/capitalist and you have "stealing is unfair."

Completely missing the point.

You're talking as though a group of rich people conspired to create this rigged system with broken rules. The basic tenets of capitalism™ (private property, profit, wage labor) has existed for as long as people have been doing commerce. The kind of unfair things you're alluding to and witnessing in the current day (leverage through capital) is not an intrinsic feature of things like owning private property and making profit.

I've already covered how the Capitalist mode of production and the material circumstances that lead to it are fairly recent. That could also be said for private property, profit and wage labour as it exists today. As for your second point, I cannot think of a single system in history which had concepts of private ownership of means of production, profits and wage labour, and did not have the kind of unfair things I am alluding too. Some anthropologists might argue that the very development of money as a concept in human society has direct correlation with the historical development of class systems. From this standpoint one might assume that they are part of the same big whole.

But it's not true that the ones holding the capital have all of the leverage in deciding wages. They're subject to the same market forces as well, unless you're implying that they control that by virtue of having capital.

This is probably a large part of the reason why there's so much immigration being pushed into Western countries. The corporations need to flood the market with cheap labor to depress wages. In a roundabout way, I guess you could say that they're using their capital to manipulate the labor market, but not directly (they're getting their cronies in governments to do it for them).

This naive belief in muh "free hand of the market" must end. The capitalists do have all the leverage in deciding wages since they own the means of production. The only thing forcing their hand to pay more than subsistence is scarcity of specialised work compared to demand, which doesn't apply to work 90% of human population is engaged in. Which is precisely why most people live paycheck to paycheck. All the wages gravitate towards the minimum subsistence wage in a capitalist system. In fact, it is exactly this leverage which allows capitalists to pay subsistence to their workers and take away most of the economic output from the operation.

I've seen first hand educated unemployed surplus youth take away the same salary for work as varied as book-keeping, bill clerk, field sales work and car driver. Because it's literally the minimum subsistence salary to stay alive. While their owners take away the bulk of the revenue for themselves. This sheer inequality might sound "fair" to you. But then again, you'd be using capitalist logic to justify itself.

As for immigrants and manipulating the labour market, what do you think capitalism even is? It's a competition with winners and losers. What do you think the winners do when they have excess of capital as compared to the competition? They use it to rig the system to favour themselves. This is not a bug but a feature of the system. The winners of the Capitalist game will always use their power to manipulate the "free market" because that thing was never "free" or "fair" to begin with. It's a fundamentally RIGGED system at its very CORE. This manipulation using capital through government cronies is not different from using their leverage as owners of means of production to pay as low as possible to workers via your "free" labour market. Literally the same philosophy of using capital inequality to maintain capital inequality.

Misery and pain aren't functions of capitalism (nor is it the goal), but they can be consequences of it. However, it's not necessarily true that it "will always exist."

It is not necessary that it will always exist. But the capitalist system will ALWAYS gravitate towards that. Simply because its more profitable. Its not the goal but a natural consequence of reaching the actual goal.

Selfishness is a core feature of it, yes, because it's an adversarial game where the object is to get more points than the other guy. In order to be competitive you need to be selfish. Note that selfishness is not intrinsically a bad or evil thing. Evil is a moral valuation and doesn't factor into the game. It's not a part of it at all. That isn't to say that evil doesn't happen, but to say that it's a feature is incorrect.

Morality is not inherent to capitalism, because it's an economic system, not a moral one. (It's ridiculous that that sentence needs to be written.)

Huh? I didn't argue any of the strawmans you are making here. I never said that Capitalists are moustache twirling evil men trying to destroy lives. In fact, I was trying to make the opposite point that the evil does not come from people but the system itself. That also doesn't mean that Capitalist philosophy demands evil as a virtue. But the goals it is trying to achieve must lead to evil actions and outcomes. And that definetly makes it a feature of the system. Which makes it easier for people to whom evil comes naturally to survive better in it. Of course, it's a morally blind economic system, that's precisely why it can manage to destroy lives for profit with relative ease.

This is a disingenuous point. Everything under the state's law is maintained by the threat of violence and supervenes on any system and set of rules beneath it. The economic system of capitalism is not a special case.

You are either being ignorant or deliberately blind to the fact that the laws in a Capitalist country and the subsequent use of violence it uses to enforce those laws are to the benefit of the Capitalist system and in effect the Capitalists themselves. The Capitalist system is part of the state's law.

I'm not sure if you realize it, but the third paragraph is actually an argument against government. Just change "means of production" to "monopoly on force" and you're practically there.

I was never arguing against a state monopoly on force to begin with. The question is to whose favour is that violent force wielded, The rich 0.1% or the rest of us.

Many things can ring true, if you hold other parts of it or preceding it to be true.

The only thing preceding it is the Capitalist system itself and its relationships.

Forget the thread, I don't even know what this part of the reply is supposed to be about or where you're going with it. Looks like just another excuse to bring up exploitation again.

I was making commentary about how this particular flavor of moral outrage frequently takes a back seat when personal sacrifices have to be made when the principles that are championed are put to the test. This is common with pro-communist types who ironically live comfortable and relatively prosperous lives under capitalist systems.

The thread was literally about how if I achieved the holy grail of capitalist success above and beyond the wealth status and comfort I already have it would still be earned off the back of others. And if you read it you'll see that I'm conveying a sense of disillusionment towards such criteria of material success in the OP. Which makes the point you are trying to make here redundant.

If I were the kind of guy you are talking about, I wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with. Instead, I'd be agreeing to your points. I think this whole thing is just projection on your part because YOU aren't the kind of guy who can make sacrifices out of whatever consumerist lifestyle you hold dear.

The thing is though, as I stated before, in a well managed socialist system everyone can live decent lives. Expensive video game setups, gold plated watches and Yatchs do not need to exist in this world. Especially at the expense of misery and poverty for everyone else. Many people who live in comfort adhere to socialist ideology, why? Because

1. They are aware that they are still not the dominant capitalists and hence their relatively better status comes from Capitalist handouts. Which the system can take away at any time
2. It's really not worth it if a single child has to go through malnutrition for such a broken system to work.

when you're insulting me directly. JFL

Where? I was talking about CAPITALISTS who'd put their head in the colloquial sand about the exploitation they are causing. And how I believe I'd rather accept I'm committing evil and still do it. Having some self-awareness is not moral grandstanding. I do shit I don't morally agree with every day.

And how is that insulting to you personally? I don't even know if you are a Capitalist.

I get the sense you have this preconceived notion that capitalism was concocted by rich people who got together and decided what's fair and what isn't.

Refer to my previous point about unequal material circumstances LEADING to capitalist system/laws/rules (and not the other way around). History matters. Everything that happens now follows from what happened before. The Capitalist system/laws did not appear in a vaccum mandated from God. It was made by real people and it benefitted those people and their already existing position.

More importantly, the fairness in question is about the rules of the game, not any natural or material advantages. You're crying about the latter when it's the former that principally matters.

These so called "rules" are pretty much build to maintain and perpetuate already existing material inequalities.

You will always have Bobby Fischers and Michael Jordans emerge. You want to sit there and cry about how that's unfair to their opponents? Really?

Are Fischer's opponent condemned to live in malnutrition? Die of hunger? denied life-saving healthcare when needed? Live in pollution infested slums? forced into prostitution? drink polluted water? eat mud cakes? pick up trash from trash mountains? if they lose a chess match.....

Real life is not your stupid video game. No offense (really) but I am starting to sense some autism on your part. You seem to think that the world is some kind of an impartial board game instead of a collection of real people with real problems, thoughts and emotions. This is probably why you think capitalism isn't bad because "muh rules" but crony corporatism is bad because "muh rules broken". As if the same underlying philosophy and end goals are not guiding both these phenomena.

intentionally handicapping one side

So........... like capitalism? (this has to be bait). Doesn't matter if the handicap was intentional or not, the point is that it's there.

Here's another fun (and totally apt) analogy which I read elsewhere. Capitalism is like starting a game of monopoly but all the property at the very start is owned by one or two players and all squares already have hotels/homes on them. Here you can lecture me about how it's a fair game because the rules are same for everyone.

Yes, and the most sensible way to distribute that fruit is based on economic concepts in capitalism

>Says the foid dangling her $1200 Gucci purse on her way to tinder Chad's mansion while her dad's worker is one hospital emergency visit away from total bankruptcy.

I seriously don't understand how the Capitalism apologist mind works because I can't find anything "sensible" about a system of distribution which, by its very design and goals, throws away millions of tones of food every year while lack of nutrition still remains a thing in this world.

This is probably a good time to mention something that I'm surprised wasn't obvious to you from the get-go. You can have exactly the kind of distributional arrangement that you're a proponent of. There is literally nothing in capitalism that says, "no, you can't distribute the fruits of labor equally to all laborers." That option is technically open, IFF all parties agree to it. They probably won't in reality, because the people taking the risk would be correct in saying they deserve a bigger share. But still, the possibility is there.

What a nonsensical farce. Of course, they won't agree to it in reality because the party that owns the means of production and Capital owns all the power. Why would they give away more than absolutely necessary to keep the workers alive. The equally farcical "risk" justification of course comes later. How convenient that most of humanity does not even have the Capital to "risk" into regular production activity. I wish I had hundreds of millions of dollars to "risk" into real estate and renting.

And there we are again. Fairness. They all decide between themselves what's fair for them, just like they always have. You can enter into any kind of business contract you so wish to choose, provided it's within the legal boundaries, of course (goes without saying).

More liberal blindness/ignorance.

Now you're assuming the moral goodness of communism

Compared to Capitalism? Yes, at least on principle. Socialism/Communism at least has a deliberate goal to improve lives (how successfully that is achieved is a different story requiring nuance). Meanwhile Capitalism has the goal of maintaining the status quo and keeping most people into poverty for the profit of few.

h a politico-economic ideology that advocates for theft and violence. Amazing. Utterly and stupefyingly amazing.

Only if you presume the Capitalist logic of enshrinement of private ownership of means of production, can it be called "theft". Its not "theft" if under communist logic the capitalist has no right to the product of someone else's labour to begin with. And I've already covered how Capitalism is often just as if not more violent in its attempt to maintain private ownership and profits.

It's quite something how Marx put a spell on so many people the world over and charmed them with his nonsense (this tracks, if you accept the satanic roots of Marxism). I have to think you're fully on board with it yourself, else you wouln't be so fervently and staunchly advocating for it.

Or maybe people who live under Capitalism can easily observe its inherent flaws. And Marx was simply pointing out things as they stand. Which anybody can see for themselves. I must say it didn't take much convincing for me.

Is it true? Are you a full-blown communist at heart now?

With the way you are arguing for Capitalism I am certainly moving in that direction with every post.

Class differences are emergent in capitalism (not a feature),

That's not true. But even if it were true, it wouldn't make Capitalism or its "emergent" classism any better. As I've said before, the world is not your stupid video game.

but that remains a farcry from classism, which is active prejudice and discrimination based on class.

Tell that to the people who are prejudiced based on the contents of their bank accounts every day.

You just implied that being pro-capitalist means you're pro-feudalist, pro-slavery, and pro-colonialism. You truly went full-retard here.

Or are you merely resorting to attempts at character assassination now? I don't believe in any of those things. But you already knew that and wanted to try and put me on the defensive backpedal with those insinuations.

What I implied was that Capitalism is a class system operating under similar but different logic to all those other class systems. And if you are going to justify Capitalism with its own internal logic and rules of "free market fairness" or "private property" or "fairness of labour market" (which you do) then one can do the same for all those other systems as well. Be it "divine right to rule" or "subhumanity of races" or whatever.

If by classism you're referring to the fact that there exists classes in societies, then this will be true in all economic and political systems.

I kind of agree that's why I don't fully buy into Communism. But the class of capitalism much like any other class system before it is indeed defined by prejudice and discrimination.

tl;dr: Be violent and steal shit, because you think it's unfair that others have more than you.

Refer to my previous point on violence and theft.

. Then turn around and claim that it was morally justfied, because unfair advantage 'n stuff.

Its morally justified because the Capitalist has no right over the product of someone else's work to begin with. And everything that exists within the system, from means of production to commodity is created by the people's work. The Capitalists can keep their stupid destructive video game rules to themselves. Maybe they should create an actual video game and play by those "fair" rules there instead of destroying humanity with their bs in real world.

black pilled cynicism on the realities of business and politics notwithstanding.

Your fundamental fault is that you are not extending this cynicism to Capitalism itself for some reason.

The economic system is supposed to be subordinate to the political system,

No, As I've mentioned before, it's a cyclic feedback system through which the economic mode of production produces the superstructure (culture, laws, political system) and then the superstructure reinforces the mode of production and its social relationships. Its a never ending cycle which ensures that Capital always stays in power. Marx covers all this.

You're forgetting that governments can and do put pressure on businesses quite frequently and do things like increase the minimum wage (before you say it, I'm already aware that it's not a livable in many cases).

Only because the worker's fought tooth and nail for it. While the capitalists were always there to sabotage any attempt at improving things. A capitalist government even in its concessions to the workers only does it to maintain the capitalist system ( much like anything else it does).

You can win by being good, evil, or morally neutral.

Not under capitalism. Its contradictions are in its underlying structure so evil will arise and triumph. What you are suggesting is that we be blind to it just like Capitalism is blind to it. Why should we not care about real people's suffering borne from a broken system and instead uphold your God mandated board game rules? No one truly knows.

Making the best decisions to win (within the rules of the game, it must be especially noted) shouldn't be morally apologetic, as morality has no right to demand an answer from it, but people (yourself and many others) continue to insist on superimposing moral valuations on game-theoretical utility maximization.

I can only presume to blame too many video/board games and a slight touch of autism for this sad take on things.

The way in which the exploitation remains fair is if the employers respect the workers' rights and don't take advantage of the workers' ignorance of their own worker's rights.

Yeah, the same worker's rights for which the workers had to shed blood and tears because the capitalist system wouldn't relent. You should really read up on the history of these things. Marx was not kidding about class "warfare". The capitalists quite literally armed the police with their money to suppress worker strike's/protest's. By bringing in unsuspecting jeets, Capitalism is doing exactly what it's video game rules are asking of it.

White people poor and Brown people poor are very much not the same. That absolutely includes street shitting.

Heh, you'd be surprised.

The funny thing is that 19th century industrial London is the quintissential stereotype of white poverty. It's very telling about Capitalism that the global capital of the most powerful, richest and largest empire in human history managed to have most of its residents live in poverty. That's just how utterly broken Capitalism as an economic system is. No wonder Marx became so popular all over europe.

Marx was right in that if Capitalism is allowed to run its course then evolution would become inevitable since its video game rules (that you so love to defend) are built to spread poverty no matter the material wealth. That is precisely why capitalist governments have concessionary worker's right laws to prevent capitalism and its board game rules from destroying itself and everyone else with it.

Capitalism and Colonialism are tied hip to hip like maternal twins. You cannot have a history of Capitalism and an understanding of things as they stand today without knowing the history of colonialism.

OK, but we're talking about words here. Words contain concepts, traits, and descriptions, which make up their definitions. When you use the word "extortion" that word has a very specific meaning, which involves criminal use of force to take people's property against their will (kind of - no, a LOT like taxes).

You can't just make up your own definitions for existing words and use them as you see fit. That's what these woke, SJW, gender bender faggots do. Don't be like them.

And I've already explained how the labour market basically works as an extortion racket run by capitalists. Except instead of money they are collecting labour. As for the use of force part I've already explained how capitalist state violence maintains capitalist monopoly over means of production via private property laws.

As for the "criminal" part. Its not criminal if a capitalist does it and the state sanctions it, am I right? (and then you proceed to criticize state mandated taxes as "criminal" without a hint of irony)

Black slaves is your other example of exploitative and fair? Is that your final answer? You can phone a friend or ask the audience.

Nobody who believes Capitalism is exploitative also believes that it is fair. It is your faulty (literal video game logic inspired) presumption that anything about capitalism is fair. The irony is that even most video games are fairer than Capitalism because everyone starts off from the same starting point. And it is some personal ability at the game which decides winners.

Plus, you don't have to commit literal evil henious acts or be part of a broken pain inducing system to get xbox achievements. How cool is that!

I don't believe that rich people are superior for being rich and should be treated better by virtue of being rich,

But they ARE treated better by virtue of being rich. Firstly, through their ability to profit off of someone else's work. Secondly, through their ability to use that wealth to live better lives. Just because we added up money as a medium and some board game rules to support it all doesn't mean that this is any different from any other Classist system. This IS the inherent classism of Capitalism.