[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / guarida / marxism / radfem / vichan / wmafsex ]

/leftpol/ - Left Politics

Red skelleton
Winner of the 83rd Attention-Hungry Games
/strek/ - Remove Hasperat

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 734622035c0a4f1⋯.jpg (67.25 KB, 600x928, 75:116, gorilla.jpg)

 No.72458

ITT - Questions/Topics that don't warrant knocking a thread off page 15. If you think it'll start a long reply chain, make a thread.

 No.84023

>>84020

It's a valid point but the problems with it are

1) They may merely pretend to use the right epistemology and still get good results (what I was pointing out replying to you) and

2) Because of the capacity to act/believe according to faith instead of rigorous process, there's always a possibility of choosing faith, and because of point 1 it's not necessarily obvious which one they're doing based on getting the right answer.


 No.84026

>>84023

To be honest, that's true for atheists just as well. They can also arrive at the good/materialist conclusions without correctly understanding the process. And even if they don't hold religious faith, surely you're not telling me that makes them 100% rational creatures who will always be extremely strict and scientific on any analysis they make.


 No.84027

>>84026

no ur wrong bill nye the science guy will always maek the correct choices when confronted with a situation


 No.84028

>>84026

It's true of everybody including secular people, but are you saying it's not more likely when a person has beliefs that specifically conflict with socialism or materialism?

>>84027

ebin


 No.84029

File: 78094b827d748d7⋯.png (282.78 KB, 1145x1578, 1145:1578, atheistsbtfo.png)

fedoras btfo with one simple miracle


 No.84030

>>84027

well, you convinced me.

>>84028

Yeah fair point, it's probably more likely. I just think the common left(y)pol mentality that assumes no religious person could ever make a materialist analysis, or be a "true" socialist, is ridiculously simplistic, so basically I was going against that.


 No.84032

File: f4443e1c278e0db⋯.jpg (1.93 MB, 3264x1836, 16:9, karl marx und satan.jpg)

>>84029

Glorious, that wouldn't happen to be a book by Wurmbrandt would it? Found this masterpiece in my uni library not too long ago


 No.84037

File: 0a8e8d3fadad7b7⋯.pdf (6.12 MB, A History of Soviet Atheis….pdf)

>>84032

It's a random aside in a book by Dimitry V. Pospielovsky titled "Soviet anti-religious Campaigns and persecutions Volume 2"

I have all three volumes it's good shit. Fugging marxists and their retarded hate boner for Christianity.

Also Marx literally wrote satanic poetry. It's even archived in marxist archives, see:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1837-pre/verse/verse4.htm


 No.84041

File: fcf8212aa955fe4⋯.pdf (6.19 MB, Communism-Hypnotism-and-th….pdf)

>>84037

You might enjoy this as well. Peak mccarthyism to the point of reading like self parody


 No.84042

>>84030

I think you're right in your general approach but I'm tryna be rigorous here. Fortunately in the grand scheme we can expect people to lose religion (which is already happening) so it's not something to worry too much about. Religious fundamentalism as a threat to society is mostly a facade for fascism as reaction to capitalism failing. IMO religion is only a concern for socialism at the individual level if one bonehead makes a choice that's less than optimal.


 No.84047

File: ae221f3ab1cdaae⋯.gif (1.31 MB, 301x250, 301:250, 1389490620039.gif)

>>84041

>first sentence

>"The communists, according to Dr. Leon Freedom"

>mfw


 No.84056

>>84047

I don't know what's better, the part about Lenin trying to destroy western culture through "Beatlism" or the part where it says our Lord Jesus Christ said that the communists should be drowned with a millstone around their neck


 No.84060

>>84032

Some institution created by the author of that book was involved in a pedophilia scandal some years ago iirc


 No.84062

>>84026

>They can also arrive at the good/materialist conclusions without correctly understanding the process

Yes, most people can more if they know how. The issue is that the process has been convoluted by academics who insist on bloating their points with pointless language. Dialectics is the perfect example of this, I'm sure when most of us got into the left hearing anons wax on about dialectics was confusing as fuck yet the concept is very simple and a lot of times is done naturally by people.


 No.84104

>>83991

Which, as the post you replied to already says, is simply lucky for us, and doesn't make taking unconsequential things on faith acceptable.


 No.84366

Anyone have a socialist perspective on the Yemen situation? I'm embarrassingly ignorant about it.


 No.84374

>>84366

Amerikkka literally forced the Saudis at gunpoint to start bombing the innocent Yemeni and thus caused a genocide. That's all you need to know.

t. /Leftypol/ BO


 No.84421

>>84374

Also the Yemeni are Shia """""Muslim""""" aka racist nazi islamophobe so they deserve it anyway


 No.85839

>>85828

>Why have nearly all communist regimes fallen by their own people, surely they weren't all secretly sabotaged by revisionists?

The USSR's leadership became a class (i argue) or a caste with separate interests from ordinary Soviet people, which resulted in their eventual dismantling of the Soviet system in favor of privatization and so on. Other countries like the Baltics, Hungary, and so on saw communism as having been imposed from the outside. But, in these countries too, many of the old communist elite simply switched parties after the end of the Cold War.

>Free trade makes less wars, and neoliberal reforms lifted many Chinese out of poverty, how do communists respond?

Dubious statement... many wars have been waged to control markets and access to natural resources. "Free trade" is more of a fiction than a reality. But the idea that trade and commerce help countries emerge from poverty is generally true. Capitalism is very effective at this.

>How do communists avoid tyranny of the majority?

The end goal of socialism/communism would - to a communist - eliminate substantial competing interests between groups and individuals. I know you're talking about this in the political sense, but a communist would generally say that the tyranny of the majority would fine since people's basic interests in a classless society would be fundamentally the same. But, in addition to that, people like Cockshott have promoted the idea of electing leaders by lot instead of by majority vote, ensuring that the randomization factor would eliminate demagoguery or large political blocs from manipulating political institutions.

>Stalin sent gays and Jews to the gulag.

Many things said about Stalin are exaggerations but, yeah, he sent a lot of people to the GULAG and was probably responsible for a lot of unnecessary terror.


 No.85840

File: 58b46c283faea66⋯.png (259.67 KB, 600x1050, 4:7, soviet_polls.png)

>>85839

Also, forgot to attach pic related. Ordinary Soviet citizens generally wanted to keep some kind of socialism or a more democratic version of what they had in the USSR. The end of the USSR was really, really bad for most Soviet citizens.


 No.85867

>>85828

>>85839

>The USSR's leadership became a class (i argue) or a caste with separate interests from ordinary Soviet people

>became

Nitpick, but this is what they were from the beginning. Lenin pretty openly disdained the people who were uneducated and mostly illiterate. IMO it was more a problem of the material conditions being unsuited to socialism since they had yet to develop capitalism. The NEP was basically Lenin realizing that capitalist development would help (it did). The Bolshies were basically trying to speed run reality by sequence breaking historical materialism. But it turned out that in order to beat the boss they needed a key item that was on the level they skipped (capitalism rapidly industrializing society paving the way for socialism). By the time they realized their master plan was flawed Lenin had died and the Party was god. The mass deaths under Stalin is a result of him realizing that they needed to industrialize and all the death inherent to reconfiguring the entire population like that. At the end of the day, the Bolshevik revolution was just another example of authoritarians thinking their brilliant plan would save the world.

>Other countries like the Baltics, Hungary, and so on saw communism as having been imposed from the outside.

This and some other examples just had too many other specific contextual problems, often the US imposing sanctions (most famously Cuba) and counterrevolutionaries (typically dispossessed capitalists).

>"Free trade" is more of a fiction than a reality. But the idea that trade and commerce help countries emerge from poverty is generally true. Capitalism is very effective at this.

The problem with free trade missed here is that "free trade" means "free movement of capital" i.e. the companies will outsource jobs wherever labor is cheapest. What socialists want is free movement of labor, so workers can go where the best work is. This is another way of saying "no borders." When capital only is free to move anywhere, you get local labor being cheated, foreign labor being over-exploited, and both groups' bargaining power undermined since they're pitted against each other.

>How do communists avoid tyranny of the majority?

Lots of different proposals. You got one answer here >>85839 but there are others. Anarchists for example have syndicalism (bottom-up organization where you "elect" leaders by consensus and recall them if they displease you) and democratic confederalism (municipal face-to-face participatory democracy where policy is decided as a group, and municipalities coordinate with each other).

>Stalin sent gays and Jews to the gulag.

Stalin was a shitter. Most commies don't like him if nothing else than for making us look bad. He (and Lenin) also killed anarchists who took umbrage with the """Soviet""" system the Bolsheviks put in place. Soviets were Russian worker councils, and the revolutionaries famously said All Power To The Soviets!(TM) but when the Soviets asked about that power they were told to fuck off and when they agitated for that power they were suppressed (murdered).


 No.85899

File: fdcb2fb77e75043⋯.png (5.52 KB, 400x400, 1:1, look.png)

>>85839

>The USSR's leadership became a class (i argue) or a caste with separate interests from ordinary Soviet people, which resulted in their eventual dismantling of the Soviet system in favor of privatization and so on.

Too vague. This kind of description fits everyone from Marxist-Leninists to the further reaches of LeftCom and beyond - to Liberals. One needs to define properly what (not just "USSR's leadership"), when and how had happened.

> Other countries like the Baltics, Hungary, and so on saw communism as having been imposed from the outside.

Really? Majority of soldiers from Baltics fought for Soviets. As for Hungary, Soviet Hungarian Republic was established in 1919. One could argue that even Soviets had communism imposed on them from outside.

>>Stalin sent gays and Jews to the gulag.

>Many things said about Stalin are exaggerations but, yeah, he sent a lot of people to the GULAG and was probably responsible for a lot of unnecessary terror.

Typical LeftCom - "I don't know enough, so I'll agree with Liberals".

Either way, it doesn't matter. You are missing the point. The poster you are answering to would hardly care if US was doing it. He is accusing Left of hypocrisy. That is what you should address, not whine "I'm one of you, I also support indiscriminate murders of Communists because they only cause deaths and misery!"

>>85867

You've made a lot of very bold statements. I'll have to quote practically your whole post to list them all. Care to substantiate them with evidence?


 No.85937

>>85899

>Too vague. This kind of description fits everyone from Marxist-Leninists to the further reaches of LeftCom and beyond - to Liberals. One needs to define properly what (not just "USSR's leadership"), when and how had happened.

>>>/liberty/88181

>>>/marx/7932

>>>/marx/7938

It's pretty much all there but I don't see why I'd give that kind of detail to someone who doesn't seem familiar with Marxist ideas.

>Really? Majority of soldiers from Baltics fought for Soviets. As for Hungary, Soviet Hungarian Republic was established in 1919. One could argue that even Soviets had communism imposed on them from outside.

The Baltic countries were annexed after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Hungarian Soviet Republic was defeated and Communists were out of power until after WW2. The USSR imposed Communist governments on these countries and also used the military to enforce the kind of policies they approved.

>He is accusing Left of hypocrisy.

I didn't see that in the post. Sounded like he was asking basic questions.

>That is what you should address, not whine "I'm one of you, I also support indiscriminate murders of Communists because they only cause deaths and misery!"

Where did I support murdering Communists you retard?


 No.85963

>>85937

> I don't see why I'd give that kind of detail to someone who doesn't seem familiar with Marxist ideas.

Why would anyone need deep knowledge of Marxist ideas to understand your "None of the 20th century states at any point had socialism"?

Even if we go deeper (to the people who actually did research USSR), there is an easily noticeable difference between the dominant versions: "it was overcentralization" and "it was undercentralization".

> The Baltic countries were annexed after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Which is irrelevant, since you are talking about potential, while I am pointing out that this potential was clearly not realized IRL.

> The Hungarian Soviet Republic was defeated and Communists were out of power until after WW2.

What should this prove or disprove?

I repeat: your criteria are too lax. They are meaningless for analysis (can explain fall of any Socialist state), and meaningless for predictions (you can't rule out their influence in any potential Socialist state).

> Sounded like he was asking basic questions.

He was not talking about Evil Bolsheviks being bad towards people. He specified two groups: Jews and gays. Why? It's not like Soviets were historically famous for persecuting either of those. I can substitute Stalin with Hitler and gulags with death camps, and the question would make much more sense.

Consciously or not, he is projecting contemporary politics on the past.

> Where did I support murdering Communists

Nobody ever checks whether or not some Communist is a BAD Stalinist who wants to built thousand death camps and starve everyone for EVULZ. If it's time to kill Stalinists, everyone gets the rope. And you completely support Liberal propaganda about Soviet Union, which is a perfect justification for aforementioned murders of dangerous radicals.

Please, note that The Truth doesn't work as an excuse. You simply don't know whether or not it is true.


 No.85975

>>85963

>And you completely support Liberal propaganda about Soviet Union

damn, you caught me. this was all part of my plan to incite people to kill communists.


 No.86139

File: 564845ef48448f1⋯.jpg (106.3 KB, 748x748, 1:1, Synthesis.jpg)

was this image made ironically, or is it serious?

i get a bookchinite vibe.


 No.86149

>>86139

I believe seriously but it was done so poorly it's a boomer tier meme.


 No.87022

>>87013

I don't even know if there's a verb in that sentence but who cares, go right ahead.


 No.87068

>>86139

>>86146

Having read pretty much everything by Bookchin, I can promise you that's not him


 No.87325

>>87322

Please define this:

>break big banks


 No.87327

>>87322

Weaksauce talking point that's transparently trying to distract people economic issues using idpol issues. It's actually pretty good ammo for us to use as an example of what's wrong with liberalism. Unironically thanks Hillary.

The problem with the idea itself (which is not the point of the statement at all since it's meant to be a thought-terminating cliche that defuses talking about reforms) is that the monopolistic practices of banks disproportionately target colored folks by virtue of them being disproportionately poor. Predatory loaning practices go after poor and uneducated people with bullshit fees that make up the majority of the banks' revenue. Being monopolies makes this possible. If you reduced the concentration in that industry you would immediately and materially benefit poor people since they'd have more competition, and that would disproportionately benefit colored folks. No it won't end racism, but no reform policy would do that. I don't even know what sexism has to do with the issue frankly. Nothing is my guess.


 No.87347

Maybe this is a bit autistic, but I'd like to compose a default list of about 7 book titles that are the most effective at educating and "redpilling" people about socialism. What books would you pick?

i'd go with

1) Engels - Principles of Communism

2) Marx - Wage Labor and Capital/Price Value and Profit

3) Lenin - Imperialism, the Hightest Stage of Capitalism

4) Eagleton - Why Marx was Right

5) Wolff/Resnick - Contending Economic Theories

6) Cockshott/Cottrell - Towards a New Socialism

7) Zizek - First as Tragedy, Then as Farce


 No.87403

File: 168bc5d5df29474⋯.jpg (117.16 KB, 850x1201, 850:1201, sample_8f45dc17f4a03a1d9c5….jpg)

I remember someone calling the le rational centrist Sargon of Akkad type's as the "Bordiga's of the right". How accurate is this description.


 No.87437

>>87347

That would really depend on the target audience tbh. It's not just about presenting socialism. You have to disarm their existing ideology first. The problem with this approach though is that a lot of people benefit enough from capitalism that they will accept it regardless (effectively taking a bribe). Kind of the point of materialism is that material conditions are going to shape your beliefs. I think that it makes more sense to start by breaking down the defenses of capitalism without having to mention gommunism.

Just for educating people about socialism that's an alright list. My suggestion would be to prune some of the less central stuff and put stuff like Listen Liberal or whatever prior to any socialist theory. Maybe 2 or 3 books that specifically break down the failures of this or that ideology - rainbow liberalism, lolbertarianism, reactionary politics, etc. Something that takes apart reigning ideology would also pair well with socialist theory because of the contrast in quality between the present orthodox and the "forbidden texts."

>>87403

Sounds almost like that's supposed to be a pun on Bordiga's activism for centralism.


 No.87503

>>87322

What about the female banker CEOs who would lose money if their banks were broken up? Didn't think about that, did you you sexist pig?


 No.87537

>>87322

no because breaking up the 'big banks' does not end the cycle of capital

soon enough the small banks again consolidate into big banks

at best it would weaken bourgeois class solidarity and make it more difficult for them to do class politics


 No.91302

>>87327

it occurs to me that the idpol approach to winning certain demographics to socialism implies that an organizer believes its easier to reach people by talking about their special snowflake identity rather than the reality they face every day of being used as a cog in a giant capitalist machine.

does that make sense? i mean, it's one thing to say that within an organization we should accept LGBT and different racial/ethnic backgrounds. it's another to actively recruit those people by appealing to that identity. As if it's too hard to talk to people about how much they get shafted in their day-to-day lives working for some soulless company?


 No.91739

I want to read Phenomenology of Spirit so I can understand Hegel's ideas. Do I need to read anything else first for it to make sense or would it work to just look things up as I go?


 No.91759

>>91302

>it's one thing to say that within an organization we should accept LGBT and different racial/ethnic backgrounds. it's another to actively recruit those people by appealing to that identity.

This is an important distinction IMO. I'd go farther and say that idpol appeals/panders to their identities [as conceived by liberal ideology per se] rather than even the material conditions they are in as a product of how society identifies them. The identities of any given group is based on liberal critique of the social system which by design eschews material critique of capitalism or other hierarchy. LGBT issues as a topic are based on liberal ideology for the most part, with very little radical politics involved. One could argue that socialist idpol closes the gap there by putting these identities in the context of radical politics (queer anarchism for example), but that falls into then there's the issue you raise. Why not just talk to them in terms of capitalist oppression?

It's especially weird since most forms of discrimination today are very directly related to capitalist relations of production. Examples:

>wedding cakes for gay people (business-consumer)

>getting fired for being [identity] (employer-employee)

>more likely to be targeted by cops (enforcer-worker)

>pay/advancement discrimination (employer-employee)


 No.91811

>>91288

>Why didn't the Soviet bloc ratify the Human Rights Declaration?

Because rights don't do anything, and any declaration of rights is good for nothing but empty posturing.

>Why does Taiwan have more progressive views on feminism than communist China?

Because Taiwan is liberal as fuck.

>How would abolishing class fix religious and nationalist conflict?

Because wars are not caused by opposing ideals. They are caused by economic incentives. Eliminating class eliminates the economic incentive to go to war, since there would be no upper class to benefit from a bunch of lower class people killing one another.


 No.94292

>>72458

Ok, hopefully you admins decide whether I should stay banned or not this time. Because one or more of you guys keep on banning me, then I mysteriously become unbanned the next day. And frankly I'm tired of this ritual you guys made, and want a clear answer.


 No.98704

In a communist society:

-Money has been abolished, or at least has been replaced with labour vouchers which are personal, are destroyed upon use, expire if not used, and can't be accumulated.

-Class had been abolished, that is the means of production are also controlled by those who work them.

-The state has been abolished.

and

-Production for exchange has been abolished, that is commodities are produced only for consumption, not for trading.

Do I have this right?


 No.98715

>>98704

>Do I have this right?

Pretty much. Just some technical and semantic points.

>In a communist society:

>-Money has been abolished, or at least has been replaced with labour vouchers which are personal, are destroyed upon use, expire if not used, and can't be accumulated.

Accurate, but the idea is ultimately that there's no need to track people's labor at all when there's enough produced to just allocate to people without regard to how much they've "earned."

>-Class had been abolished, that is the means of production are also controlled by those who work them.

Close. This is part of getting there, but ultimately the MoP should be under control of everyone not just the people working them. E.g. miners get a say over how mines are run, but so do the smelters, the transporters, and the people who don't do any related labor but live with the environmental impact of a mine.

>-The state has been abolished.

Yep.

>-Production for exchange has been abolished, that is commodities are produced only for consumption, not for trading.

You have the right idea but the terminology is a bit off. A commodity by definition is something that is produced to be sold. To be more accurate you might say "Production is done for consumption or use, not for selling on a market," or "Commodity production is abolished."


 No.98717


 No.99102

>>99050

>USA by default

Go and fuck yourself


 No.99136

What are the wordfilters and how do I find the list myself?


 No.99168

>>99136

https://8ch.net/settings.php?board=leftypol

https://8ch.net/settings.php?board=leftpol

you can look at settings and wordfilters for every single board just by changing that link to match the board name.


 No.99174

>>99050

Why do you vote?


 No.99325

>>73361

The real question is, why listen to DIJ when you can go listen to Coil?


 No.99326

What response would you give to people who claim egoism is human nature, society can't be built on a model of solidarity because people will keep abusing it, etc.?


 No.99331

>>99326

>egoism is human nature

1. Not all humans share the same nature and temperament.

2. Human nature isn't monolithic even within a single individual. Each person has multiple aspects to their behavior/nature.

3. Even from the perspective of rational self-interest it is within the interest of working people to want to abolish capitalism and wage-labor.

4. The associative / cooperative aspect of human nature is responsible for virtually all of civilization's achievements in the long-term, which means failing to build a society based on common principles like solidarity leads only to social decay.

5. In a well-designed system, economic or otherwise, there are measures intended to keep abuse to a minimum.


 No.99333

Why does Nazi metal sounds like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61kk412vR10

But communist metal sounds like fucking this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTEX-sQepjg

Can we spare metal fashies from the wall so I can keep listening to good black metal?


 No.99338

>>99333

>black metal

>good

Shit taste, Sven.


 No.99353

File: 8b9dd33f101f98d⋯.jpg (48.21 KB, 429x429, 1:1, 9724.jpg)

>>99333

There is plenty of good left wing metal if you count various forms of metallic grindcore as metal, also the first wave Brazilian Black Metal scene was largely leftist. That being said I love me some fanisk.


 No.99357

>>99333

>>99353

Ah, to be 12 again


 No.99368

should I care about Frege, Russel, and Wittgenstein if Kurt Goedel's incompleteness theorem holds true?


 No.99377

>>99357

classicalfags will be the first to get the bullet


 No.99383

>>99377

Yet metalcucks try to emulate classical all the time.


 No.99385

>>99368

Yes you should.


 No.99388

File: bad34d90e17ff76⋯.jpg (39.76 KB, 400x400, 1:1, 4537.jpg)

>>99383

Was totally worth it to create some of the greatest music known to man technically most iconic extreme metal like pic related is more inspired by romantic period music like Wagner and Liszt, though plenty of metal is neoclassical as well


 No.99395

>>99385

ok very well, and why?


 No.99823

Are there any good recent movies or documentaries which address climate change from a leftist standpoint?


 No.99830

>>99383

What is "classical?"


 No.101508

Which is worse;

-a pro-capitalism anti-zionist, or

-an anti-capitalist zionist?


 No.102550

Material and economic conditions shape culture and other immaterial things, but

-to what degree?

-through what process or mechanism?


 No.102551

>>102550

>-to what degree?

As the primary factor, but you can't put a number on this if that's what you mean.

>-through what process or mechanism?

The superstructure that best facilitates the material base will outcompete the alternatives via natural selection, which doesn't just apply to biology. In any context where you have competition over time between self-perpetuating forces/trends, some will be more successful than others (pretty much a tautology, just restating the definition of competition). Because you need the material side to be fulfilled but the ideological side doesn't have to be, ideology is primarily going to shape itself to whatever is most useful given the material context (since an entity taking less than full advantage of adapting ideology will lose out).


 No.103134

Can somebody explain to me why the distinction in marx between labour and labour-power is so significant? I understand that you're talking about the capacity/ability to work in the latter, rather than the work itself, but I still don't totally get why it's important that your pay depends on your capacity for labour instead of the actual labor.


 No.103146

>>103134

Are you talking about pay as in wages? If you are, then we are talking about capitalism, which is what Marx wrote about in Capital. There are several reasons why workers get paid for their potential labor rather than what they actually produce. One such reason is mystification. If an employer were to pay his employees according to how much they produce for him, then the difference between what they rightly earn and what he pays them will be spelled out in plain ink on every one of their paychecks. That would be detrimental to morale and provide workers with ready justification to make demands. Another reason is that a commission workforce is expensive to maintain. Commissioned workers are specialists–skilled and trained, which is something that an employer must pay to cultivate. Furthermore, once a specialist is trained he can leave taking his newly-acquired skills with him. That is a huge sunk cost, which means that employers must provide incentives for specialists to stay in the form of benefits packages. Even if the commissioned worker is significantly more productive than an hourly worker (which he almost always will be), the hourly worker costs hardly anything to train and is easily replaced with little cost. Thus the hourly worker can make no demands for benefits, only work as hard as he can so as not to be fired and left destitute. Right away, the advantages to the employer of paying workers for their potential rather than for their production are apparent.

Another advantage is that it allows employers to set wages according to arbitrary distinctions. The poor children of immigrants can be paid less than a native regardless of which of them works harder. That puts workers into competition with one another. In order for the native worker to keep his job, he must endeavor to produce at a level greater than that of the immigrant worker, who is similarly compelled to produce at a level that will discourage the employer from replacing him with another cheap laborer. A parallel advantage to the employer is that the native worker will blame the immigrant worker for working for less, as if the immigrant worker has any choice in the matter. Meanwhile, the immigrant worker will resent the native worker's higher pay as well as the antipathy that he shows toward him. Thus the workers argue with one another over shit that only their boss has any control over. The arbitrary distinction does not even have to be based on where the workers are from. It can be based on absolutely anything (sex, criminal history, credit score, race, anything that you can use to differentiate between people) and still serve the same function.


 No.103148

>>103134

In a nutshell, porky obfuscates how much labor you're doing by paying you to work this hard or for that long, but then demanding that you work over and above this value.


 No.103155

File: 69601305681a6d8⋯.jpg (1.15 MB, 1700x1200, 17:12, Black★Rock.Shooter.(Charac….jpg)

>>103146

>>103148

Are you dumb? It is not some conscious "Porky" conspiracy to make workers' lives hell. And to bring up your irrational hatred for immigrant workers to further mystify this question!

No, the answer is much easier. It can't be any other way. You are not paid for your abstract or concrete labour: you are paid for both (or neither?), since they are just different forms of the same thing. As a wage-labourer you are selling your labour as a commodity, and as such, its value is determined by the only thing common to all commodities: socially necessary labour time, which, as you might have guessed by now, for the worker is the same thing as their labour-power.


 No.103187

File: cfa609fd479a363⋯.pdf (221.02 KB, Marx - Wage Labor and Capi….pdf)

>>103155

>this entire post

your brain must be the size of the universe dude

if you have this poor a grasp of a subject maybe don't be a huge cunt to other people about their understanding

>It is not some conscious "Porky" conspiracy to make workers' lives hell.

Yeah no shit. It's called a metaphor you autist. Porky-as-individual-bourgeoisie controls the business and what portion of suplus is extracted, even if it's in a custodial role, though.

>And to bring up your irrational hatred for immigrant workers to further mystify this question!

I didn't, but immigrant workers are relevant since they can be used to lower the cost of labor.

>No, the answer is much easier. It can't be any other way.

Hey fag, this is a thread for other communists to explain theory and shit to newbies, not for liberals to argue why they think Marx was wrong.

>You are not paid for your abstract or concrete labour: you are paid for both (or neither?), since they are just different forms of the same thing.

A worker is paid the lowest amount a capitalist can get away with paying them because the labor market is tilted by an imbalance of power between the classes.

>As a wage-labourer you are selling your labour as a commodity, and as such, its value is determined by the only thing common to all commodities: socially necessary labour time,

…which ties the value of the labor to the amount of labor performed rather than to the price (what porky pays in wages to buy the labor), as you said above. The value of that labor is not realized when porky buys the labor, but when porky sells the commodity produced by the labor. All of this is in Wage Labor and Capital, which you clearly need to read.

>socially necessary labour time, which, as you might have guessed by now, for the worker is the same thing as their labour-power.

Labor-power is the ability to perform labor in general. Socially Necessary Labor Time is the amount of labor needed on average to produce a commodity, which is equivalent to the Value of that commodity. These are not even the same type of thing, much less identical. If you were describing labor using physics, you would be using different units for these two thigns. It would be like comparing miles per gallon in a car to the length of a commute.


 No.103274

File: fc04b7187450615⋯.pdf (3.3 MB, Capital-Volume-I.pdf)

>>103187

>not for liberals to argue why they think Marx was wrong.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Everything in >>103155 is from Marx's Capital.

"Porky" is irrelevant, even if there is no surplus value "extracted" you are paid based on your labour power because all exchange in the capitalist mode of production are commodity exchanges. Labour, as a commodity can only be abstract labour, i.e., "pure" labour in time. Both labour power and SNLT are measured in "pure" labour time you dumb fuck.

Now go and read a real book. Or maybe just give up since it seems to me that you failed to understand even that half-assed pamphlet written for illiterate workers one and a half centuries ago.


 No.103296

>>103187

>>103274

>two guys quoting Marx at each other while not actually disagreeing

This is just a pissing contest now, so answer me this: if workers can only be paid for their abstract labor, then where do the commissioned workers described in >>103146 fit in?


 No.103304

File: a4ecb95e5ac21c0⋯.jpg (40.23 KB, 368x433, 368:433, kryuchkov_1.jpg)

>>103134

Here's some posts I made on the topic a few months ago:

>>>/marx/8104

>>>/marx/8212

The significance here is that by realizing that workers are paid for their labor-power (ability to do work) and not their labor (the actual use-values produced) it becomes clear that there is a difference between what workers are paid and the actual value they create. This allows one to make a direct comparison between modern wage-labor and the labor of feudal serfs who worked part of the week for themselves (to produce the means of their own subsistence) and part of the week for a feudal lord. In capitalism, the wage-labor works part of the day to produce enough value to pay for his own cost of subsistence and part of the day to produce surplus values which go to the capitalist, a part of which is taken as profit.

This distinction allows Marx to point out several things:

1. In capitalism workers can never be paid "the full value of their labor".

2. For capitalism to function, workers must always be paid less than the value they create.

3. Profits are created in the sphere of production and not in exchange (unlike one might assume based upon appearances.)

4. The old division of work under feudalism still exists under capitalism, but in a disguised form.


 No.104605

Brainlet questions of the day:

1) What's the correct reply to the neoliberal argument that "there's no alternative" and the economy as a whole will need to be developed further through harsh austerity policies before any redistribution of wealth can happen? I don't believe in trickle down economics at all, and I know the rich are the only ones who get better from austerity, but it does seem like neoliberalism makes the economy of the country as a whole boom(?) which I'd think creates better conditions for the advent of socialism.

2) When socialists advocate a period of temporary liberalization - such as the NEP or what Cuba has done multiple times - to "develop the productive forces", how is this different from the neoliberal view that a temporary liberalization is needed before society as a whole can benefit? I never quite understood the role of these periods of liberalization. If a more "free" market is at times actually needed, does this not constitute a flaw in socialism's ability to develop the productive forces? Will such periods of liberalization always occur, or only while socialism isn't developed enough and while socialist countries co-exist with capitalist ones?

3) In a period of radical social democracy, i.e. where capitalism is still the dominant mode of production but high taxes and all kinds of regulations are imposed on companies, is there any way to prevent capital flight (except for literally expropriating them right away and moving on to socialism)?

4) How to reconcile certain leftist positions, such as anti-imperialism, with support for the working class when these positions can be directly detrimental to working people? For example they could lose their jobs if the USA stopped exploiting the third world or stopped trading with Saudi Arabia. Another example would be leftists supporting the closure of extremely polluting fossil fuel mines out of ecological concerns and using slogans such as "There are no jobs on a dying planet". How to mobilize proletarians to undertake actions that could lead directly to them becoming unemployed?


 No.104818

>>104605

Shhh.

Don't ask questions, just look at Daddy Stalins beautiful moustache.


 No.104825

>>103274

I accused the poster of being a liberal for saying that it can't be any other way, which sounds like liberal talk to me.

>Both labour power and SNLT are measured in "pure" labour time you dumb fuck.

Labor power - a worker's power to do labor - is not a measurement of time. Are you referring to the purchased allotment of labor power? Because that's distinct from the worker's labor power itself in the same way - again - as a particular trip in a car is different from the car's fuel efficiency or horsepower.

Other than these (pedantic) points I'm not sure where you disagree.

>>103296

Workers can be paid for concrete labor. The distinction between paying for labor and labor time isn't universally applicable, just often the case. It's an important distinction to recognize because of how common it is, not because it's strictly necessary. Here's a clarifying contrast.

If it's a company paying you commission, it's probably to do part of a larger project though, meaning it is still abstract labor in a sense because the value of the commissioned work isn't realized until put into the context of the larger project. For example, if someone writes a newspaper column on commission the value of the column isn't realized until the newspapers are sold. If, on the other hand, an independent artist does commission work for an individual then they are being paid for their concrete labor because the product/commodity goes directly to the client.


 No.104850

File: 06b2f1273a847c4⋯.png (246.76 KB, 1150x771, 1150:771, takagi-san.png)

>>104605

1) modern economies are based on feels - the feels of the investors. if you promise to feed them and change their nappies they'll be happy and the country's credit rating will go up which means cheaper money. neoliberals are all about maximising capital, in this sense sense the neolibs are right, tearing down all barriers of capital and their subservience to capital makes them better economic choice in the short term. of course this excessive pandering to finance can have a terrible effect on the real economy and society, and in the long term socdemism is likely much better for the economy even by capitalist metrics. investment in training, education, infrastructure, social stability, healthcare and so on is overall far better than religious faith in the 'free markets'.

2) where do neoliberals argue for a temporary liberalisation?

>If a more "free" market is at times actually needed, does this not constitute a flaw in socialism's ability to develop the productive forces?

I don't know if its a flaw as such, but socialist systems for obvious reasons can't exploit foreign investment like capitalisms do which cause an explosion in the expansion of the productive forces in the right conditions (see: China and the SEZs) Socialist systems thus far have also been bureaucratic and high-control, which has made them quite sluggish.

>Will such periods of liberalization always occur, or only while socialism isn't developed enough

Only when outside investment and rapid expansion of the productive forces is necessary. Here you should note the context of real-existing socialism happening only in very backward nations thus far, with very low inital reserves of capital.

3) capital controls, they used to be the standard until very recently

4) these positions are generally only against the worker's interest at a superficial level. to use the anti-imperialist example, imperialism in its modern form means more intra-class competition in the price of labour-time, meaning lower wages in the developed world. maintaining the hard and soft power necessary for imperialist adventurism also takes a lot of resources that could be used for something actually useful.

>Another example would be leftists supporting the closure of extremely polluting fossil fuel mines out of ecological concerns and using slogans such as "There are no jobs on a dying planet".

this is where we make our big break from the social democrats: jobs for jobs' sake don't mean anything to us, we are for the elimination of wage labour after all. we shouldn't get drawn in the trap of defending obsolete labour.

coal miners die young and pollution destroys the quality of life of people. economics is not a force of nature, there are any number of productive and valuable things people can do that don't return a great enough profit to be 'worth it' today. the liberation of labour and the end of alienation - and its detrimental and antisocial effects - will not happen overnight, and I for one believe that a lenghty, even multi-generational transitional period is necessary (hence the flag)


 No.104856

File: 8a4424d7ac4ad55⋯.png (7.77 KB, 250x85, 50:17, google.png)

Hey I'm back with another question. What is /leftpol/ opinion on current censorship coming from google, yahoo, microsoft, apple, youtube, twitter, facebook, ect that is being aimed at Right Wing Republican/Libertarian/Classical Liberal platforms?


 No.104861

>>104856

It demonstrates that capitalism is authoritarian.


 No.104864

>>104856

>current censorship coming from google, yahoo, microsoft, apple, youtube, twitter, facebook, ect that is being aimed at Right Wing Republican/Libertarian/Classical Liberal platforms?

elaborate

especially on censorship of libertarian or classical liberal material


 No.104919

>>104861

>It demonstrates that capitalism is authoritarian.

Not necessarily. It depends on what fixes the problem. If Free Market Capitalism fixes this, win for Capitalism, If censorship laws need to be created this creates a very interesting situation. It proves that people on the Left are far more tribal and unreasonable than people on the Right. Proving that even in a Free Market people will stick to their political parties like a religion. Therefore converting the 4.5 million people that voted Libertarian in 2016 to Republicans in 2020.

>>104864

For instance Dave Rubin who was an outspoken Democrat for 20+ years switched his stance on politics and identifies as a classical liberal and denounces the Democrats identity politics was immediately demonetized. The coordinated attack on Alex Jones. Also pretty much anyone who interviews Ben Shapiro is demonetized.


 No.104929

>>104919

>Free Market Capitalism

Doesn't exist, firstly because there will always be need of a strong state structure to protect private property, secondly because large companies are monopolizing the market more and more.


 No.104931

>>104929

This is honestly my greatest fear. 100 years ago we had a very limited government and no one cared who the president was. Everyone wants a favor or a handout now. How many people loved Bernie Sanders because muh free healthcare and free college. People don't understand economics. My dad didn't even finish high school. The idea that he has to pay taxes to fund public colleges for his entire life is criminal. Monopolies are definitely bad but are only permanent if they have government force.


 No.104939

File: 630bd5a65cbaac4⋯.png (110.46 KB, 1332x205, 1332:205, (me) on corporate censorsh….png)

>>104919

Don't know who Rubin is, Jones is a nutter and there are other reasons apart from his political alignment to demonetise him. Shapiro is a meme, and an offence to intellect. Somehow I get the feeling it might not be only their political alignment drawing ire. Are you sure its not the 'free market' deciding that being associated with these figures via ads would be detrimental to their business?

about corporate censorship in general, here's a [pic related] about censorship against fascists. more or less the same things apply here too, though liberals aren't so honest or aggressive with their repression of socialist ideas

>>104931

>People don't understand economics.

you mean the people who consider governmental investment in education, infrastructure and healthcare and other boons to productivity an evil?

>The idea that he has to pay taxes to fund public colleges for his entire life is criminal.

why? a better-educated society is to the benefit of all its members, including your father. you aren't an independent spirit floating in a vacuum.

>Monopolies are definitely bad but are only permanent if they have government force.

I see minarchists claim this all the time, but I've never seen any explanation or proof of why that is.


 No.104951

File: 4cc560802c8616b⋯.jpeg (37.4 KB, 522x294, 87:49, aliens.jpeg)

>>104939

That's the point though, Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist. What made him so important? Banning him is like banning that guy with the fucked up hair from Ancient Aliens. To what good does it do banning someone who thinks that "Weiner" guy from Hilary's campaign is an inter-dimensional pedophile vampire. It makes them look even crazier than him.

>you mean the people who consider governmental investment in education, infrastructure and healthcare and other boons to productivity an evil?

Yes and no. Its kind of the same reason why I think a Universal Basic Income isn't just a bad idea but a horrible one. Implementing it would cost over 4 trillion a year and then when the economy is booming and unemployment is low when the tax dollars are at their highest is when you don't need it. However once the economy tanks and the people who need it the most won't have enough because the tax revenue to support it isn't high enough. We both know that the government is incapable of saving money for balance. Similar to the way 5 million people staved to death after the Soviet Union collapsed.

>why? a better-educated society is to the benefit of all its members, including your father. you aren't an independent spirit floating in a vacuum.

Ok to put this into context I am 30 and my father is 59. By the time my father retires(by 2030) the cost of Social Security will have doubled and along with it Medicaid. I've been paying into it for 12 years so by the time I retire and want to use it, It either won't be available or the payouts will have dropped to the point where you can't live off of it. Especially when you consider the predictions that the generation after me will have a lower life expediency than mine.

>I see minarchists claim this all the time, but I've never seen any explanation or proof of why that is.

Because the market moves to fast. Microsoft did everything they could to maintain their monopoly in the 90s which included buying people up and closing them down. I think Netscape was one of those companies. All their wealth didn't stop what happened next, Smartphones and operating systems that required touch features. Apple/Android offered far superior products and alternatives to Microsoft. For example do you know anyone who loves(or even has) a Windows phone? I don't.

Also I'm not a minarchist. I know you wern't accusing me of this but there is a massive difference between limited government and zero government. Zero government is a bad idea because for instance, if North Korea wanted to cash in on our wealth we wouldn't have a Military to stop them.


 No.104952

>>104951

continued

For context on Alex Jones here's a video link. This guy makes me laugh harder than any current comedian.


 No.104953

>>104952

continued

Ah crap. No link. I don't fully understand the rules on 8 chan. To be honest I keep getting banned from 4chan for things I never posted. It was a link to a 10 minute video of Joe Rogan interviewing Alex Jones.


 No.104961

>>104931

>100 years ago we had a very limited government and no one cared who the president was.

You are bad at history. A hundred years ago, Woodrow Wilson had won the presidency by campaigning on the platform "he kept us out of the war" only to send a massive army to Europe a year later. It was a slap in the face to reformists and one of the most flagrant examples of how voting in a bourgeois election accomplishes exactly jack shit.

Also, the small gubbermint that you love had passed the 16th Amendment instituting a nation-wide income tax just five years prior.


 No.104964

>>104961

My grandfather was born in a log cabin on a farm that could only be reached by a horse trail. He never voted. He didn't care. When I say most people, I don't mean all people. 2/3s of the population didn't vote in 2016.


 No.104966

>>104964

Your grandfather was voting age a hundred years ago? What are you, eighty? Fake.


 No.104967

>>104966

I didn't say that. Putting words in my mouth won't help you here. My grandfather was born in 1938 and my father in 1959. Technically speaking your argument doesn't help you, in fact it works against you. Now we're talking about my great grandfather's period of which I don't even know his name let alone political views which I suspect he didn't care. Why do I think this? Because his son didn't care and my father didn't vote until his first time until 2008.


 No.104968

>>104951

>What made him so important? Banning him is like banning that guy with the fucked up hair from Ancient Aliens.

Jones' shit has started to stick now, though. harrassment campaigns against the parents of kids killed in the Sandy Hook massacre for example are pretty bad. and you should note that a lot of Americans don't have a very strong grasp of reality, and they don't even much care for it.

>Its kind of the same reason why I think a Universal Basic Income isn't just a bad idea but a horrible one.

your take on UBI makes a lot of unfounded assumptions. and is generally rather pedestrian, considering all the potential factors involved in the whole cause-and-effect related to it. Leftist debate around UBI is very interesting actually - on one side we have the opinion that UBI is a subsidy to bad employers and enables them to underpay workers even harder, on the other there is the opinion that it is the best form of social security for the platform-economy we are headed towards, and due to its adaptability and universality allows for more freedom. but these things are very dependent on the actual implementation, much like your '4 trillion'-take.

>We both know that the government is incapable of saving money for balance.

This I can certainly agree with, and is why popular politics and keynesianism don't work together. effective capitalism tends towards authoritarian politics.

>Ok to put this into context

none of your context matters, you are still looking at it the wrong way. even if you or your father don't get the full benefit of a service paid for in part by taxes you pay, the benefits to society at large, of which you are a part, make it worth it. healthcare is a good example: a healthy population takes fewer sick days and a reasonable illness policy means people don't go to work sick and cause epidemics. massive productivity gains benefiting the rest of the society as well. and in general being freed from the tyranny of random misfortune (such as a debilitating sickness) is a hallmark of a civilisation if you ask me.

>Because the market moves to fast.

that's not really a very concrete explanation, or an inbuilt anti-monopolistic mechanism.

>Microsoft did everything they could to maintain their monopoly in the 90s which included buying people up and closing them down.

M$ still owns the desktop platform, smartphones and whatnot are a different beast altogether.

>Also I'm not a minarchist. I know you wern't accusing me of this but there is a massive difference between limited government and zero government.

Minarchists want a minimal government, not its abolishment. The Night-Watchman state is the popular phrase.


 No.104975

>>104967

>I didn't say that.

Then what the fuck does your story about your grandfather in 1950-something have to do with anything?

>of which I don't even know his name let alone political views

Then don't talk like you know what he–and by an absurd extension–people in general were thinking.

>Why do I think this? Because his son didn't care and my father didn't vote until his first time until 2008.

So, you extrapolate that he–and thus socuety at large–did not care about voting, because his flower children didn't care about it? Can you see how that might be a spectacular logic leap?


 No.104980

>>104968

>Jones' shit has started to stick now, though. harrassment campaigns against the parents of kids killed in the Sandy Hook massacre for example are pretty bad. and you should note that a lot of Americans don't have a very strong grasp of reality, and they don't even much care for it.

I know about his Sandy Hook conspiracy. What about the conspiracy theory of 9/11 where 3,000 American's died? Or the conspiracy theory that Freddie Gray was shot point blank in the head in the back of a Swat vehicle by police proposed by Black Lives Matters? Its a conspiracy theory, the whole point of a conspiracy theory is that the bulk of evidence doesn't support the claim. All conspiracy theories are offensive.

>your take on UBI makes a lot of unfounded assumptions. and is generally rather pedestrian, considering all the potential factors involved in the whole cause-and-effect related to it. Leftist debate around UBI is very interesting actually - on one side we have the opinion that UBI is a subsidy to bad employers and enables them to underpay workers even harder, on the other there is the opinion that it is the best form of social security for the platform-economy we are headed towards, and due to its adaptability and universality allows for more freedom. but these things are very dependent on the actual implementation, much like your '4 trillion'-take.

What's 325 million times 12,000. The answer is the number of tax dollars that need to be raised by the federal government. How much would that push up taxes? We currently spend 1 trillion more than we make back is taxes annually. I also don't mean to keep pointing at the national debt but it is a serious problem.

>none of your context matters, you are still looking at it the wrong way. even if you or your father don't get the full benefit of a service paid for in part by taxes you pay, the benefits to society at large, of which you are a part, make it worth it. healthcare is a good example: a healthy population takes fewer sick days and a reasonable illness policy means people don't go to work sick and cause epidemics. massive productivity gains benefiting the rest of the society as well. and in general being freed from the tyranny of random misfortune (such as a debilitating sickness) is a hallmark of a civilisation if you ask me.

>context doesn't matter

You are making my point for me. Society is a leech on my pay check. I will never get back what I paid in. I remember those days of working 100 hours weeks in the oil field shoveling oil based mud out of a roll-off container. My longest SHIFT was 42 hours. Makes me feel sorry for those people that refuse to work more than 40.

>sarcasm

>tyranny of random misfortune (such as a debilitating sickness)

Now this is truly fun. Making the case for a socialized healthcare. Which would cost anywhere from 2.5-3.5 trillion. I lean more toward 3.2(source Kris Kesser) but I will settle for 3. Our current health care system is a complete and total fucking catastrophe. Mainly because of over regulation. Surgeons spend 12 years in college and go 200,000$ in debt. Then when they start working they have to hire a lawyer to be on call 24/7 in case if someone threatens to sue them. It is a complete mess but why socialize it when you can give the Free Market a chance? Don't trust the Free Market? Have you ever smoked weed that was acquired illegally? -.-

>that's not really a very concrete explanation, or an inbuilt anti-monopolistic mechanism.

Tech is probably the most relevant topic because of how fast things change. Things change so fast that reprinting a book every year still makes the book outdated. For instance when people apply for a coding job the employer cares more about the fact that if you can code rather than if you have a 4 year degree.

>M$ still owns the desktop platform, smartphones and whatnot are a different beast altogether.

That's what I was implementing. The market changes too fast. Sure Microsoft is still worth a lot of money but lets be honest. No one is betting on them for the next technological breakthrough.

>Minarchists want a minimal government, not its abolishment. The Night-Watchman state is the popular phrase.

Fine fine semantics. If I misunderstood the labeling I'll take the blame for that.


 No.104983

>>104975

>Then what the fuck does your story about your grandfather in 1950-something have to do with anything?

Because I don't know anything about my great grandfather, hence why I was talking about my grandfather and how different his beginnings were to mine. Straw man much?

>Then don't talk like you know what he–and by an absurd extension–people in general were thinking.

You're absolutely right. My grand father must have gotten his love for fishing and ethics of working on a dairy and corn farm from a Tibetan monk in 1850. Then again, maybe he was a Tibetan monk. How would I know? Maybe he knows the location of Lance Armstrong's missing testicle.

>So, you extrapolate that he–and thus socuety at large–did not care about voting, because his flower children didn't care about it? Can you see how that might be a spectacular logic leap?

1920 USA census 106,021,537

1920 USA presidential election voters 25,283,754

To be fair though this had a 8 million higher voter turn out than 1912 but still roughly 25%(vs roughly 35% in 2016) of population voted in 1920. I also used wikipedia as a source so accuracy might not be credible. I did try though.


 No.105002

Why does this board exist? What happened to /leftypol/


 No.105020

>>105002

I hear it was an authoritarian tendency to purge all non-Marxist-Leninists that led to the creation of this board.

It's why I'm here now. They banned me for zero reason (for a few days) other than opposing authoritarianism. No one even tried to defend it.


 No.105025

File: 2d364e6f4ad49b4⋯.jpg (109.87 KB, 1131x681, 377:227, healthcare spending.jpg)

>>104980

>All conspiracy theories are offensive.

but most of them tend to be self-contained. the Sandy Hook one is having real, negative consequences. a bit like how /pol/ schizos used to be just nutters believing in nazi shit, but now they are killing their fathers.

>What's 325 million times 12,000.

how'd you decide that UBI should be 1k holla holla dolla a month per person?

>We currently spend 1 trillion more than we make back is taxes annually.

that's nice but doesn't really matter. for someone worried of people not understanding economics you should prob do some reading on MMT. And to think of something like UBI merely in terms of how much it costs on paper, as opposed to a more comprehensive analysis of its social/budget impact is very sophomoric.

>Society is a leech on my pay check. I will never get back what I paid in.

between the fact that your surplus value already goes to the capitalist you sell your labour time to and the fact that you refuse to see social security as an investment to the society you exist in, well, you seem like a terminally ideological Anglo liberal.

>It is a complete mess but why socialize it when you can give the Free Market a chance?

by practically all metrics, a socialised system of medicine is better than a 'free market' model. Americans already pay way, way more for healthcare than Europeans with good systems of socialised healthcare, even per capita, and even in terms of public expenditure. [pic related]. The problem with american healthcare is not that there is too much regulation, it's that corporate interests rule the country, which is a consequence of capitalism.

>Tech is probably the most relevant topic because of how fast things change.

that would then make it an exception more than anything, we are discussing your claim that monopolies in general are permanent only "if they have government force"


 No.105027


 No.105089

File: f3f99300425fd31⋯.jpg (40.71 KB, 800x500, 8:5, 013.jpg)

What's the general consensus on Bombacci?


 No.105090

>>105025

>but most of them tend to be self-contained. the Sandy Hook one is having real, negative consequences. a bit like how /pol/ schizos used to be just nutters believing in nazi shit, but now they are killing their fathers.

This is the problem when trying to define hate speech.

>how'd you decide that UBI should be 1k holla holla dolla a month per person?

1,000 per month seems to be the agreed starting point.

>that's nice but doesn't really matter. for someone worried of people not understanding economics you should prob do some reading on MMT. And to think of something like UBI merely in terms of how much it costs on paper, as opposed to a more comprehensive analysis of its social/budget impact is very sophomoric.

Giving people money doesn't create an incentive to work. Look at welfare recipients.

For what its worth if I understand my numbers correctly the transportation industry employs the most amount of people in the USA. When AI and automation replaces these jobs I will be willing to re-evaluate my stance on UBI & healthcare.

>between the fact that your surplus value already goes to the capitalist you sell your labour time to and the fact that you refuse to see social security as an investment to the society you exist in, well, you seem like a terminally ideological Anglo liberal.

There are private alternatives to Social Security for retirement. One of them being a health savings account which is money you have the complete right to and can be rolled over to your children when you die thus building value and rewards good health. Also if someone is born with only one arm I'm not against them receiving some form of state assistance. They obviously are at a serious disadvantage but this isn't the bulk of people on it.

I know we spend the most per citizen but that's the result of having such a diverse population and the fact that our diet consists of pizza rolls and energy drinks.

Bernie Sanders is so noble when its someone else's money he's promising to give away.

>by practically all metrics, a socialised system of medicine is better than a 'free market' model. Americans already pay way, way more for healthcare than Europeans with good systems of socialised healthcare, even per capita, and even in terms of public expenditure. [pic related]. The problem with american healthcare is not that there is too much regulation, it's that corporate interests rule the country, which is a consequence of capitalism.

This is a much much longer conversation than this. Countries in Europe are more homogeneous than ours. Countries that have low spending and good health were already populated with people of good health prior to the introduction of socialized medicine.

Also an interesting case is for LASIK eye surgery. When it was covered by health insurance companies it was expensive. I want to say 15,000 an eye. Heath Insurance companies started refusing to offer it because it's not exactly necessary for life. When they stopped covering it the price went way down to roughly 2,500 an eye because people had to pay for it themselves which leads to them shopping around and comparing options.

>that would then make it an exception more than anything, we are discussing your claim that monopolies in general are permanent only "if they have government force"

Look into NET Neutrality(which also brings up the question if youtube is violating these current laws when they censor people), it goes back I think 100 years and essentially exists to give the telephone(?) company a monopoly. I did a lot of research on that when it was a big event in the news about a year ago.

Also about the censorship thing going on with Youtube it could argued that Youtube doesn't have the right to the content creators content. If you started making videos, drew in an audience, starting making revenue, quit your job to make videos full time and then are demonetized. You probably wouldn't have taken these steps if you knew they were going to censor you. So that's borderline fraud on Youtube's part. Also for anything to be legal in a Capitalistic society full consent in a transaction is required. If you sell me a pound of beef and tell me its grass fed, but its actually grain fed and I purchase with my claimed consent that's a con. You can't lie about a product you're selling to someone because that falls under theft. For instance if someone is robbing you at gunpoint and threatened to kill you but it was later discovered that there were no bullets in it you can't use that as a defense to say that it was a legal transaction. You were threatening someone with a something capable of lethal force.

Also I like coming here because that's the only way you really learn things about other ideas is by having these types of conversations with people you disagree with.


 No.105124

>>104983

Absolutely none of that answered any of the questions or addressed any of the points that the post that you replied to posed. It is all a complete non-sequitor.


 No.105126

>>105090

Nearly all of that post is nonsensical tangents that have nothing to do with previous points. Is that intentional sophistry, or are you just incapable of following logical arguments?


 No.105195

>>105126

I like it when people actually refute my points. Instead you're refusing to acknowledge them.

Lets try this again.

>>but most of them tend to be self-contained. the Sandy Hook one is having real, negative consequences. a bit like how /pol/ schizos used to be just nutters believing in nazi shit, but now they are killing their fathers.

>This is the problem when trying to define hate speech.

I know I wasn't being accused of "hate speech" but its pretty much the same type of argument. When do you justify censoring and when don't you? Sandy Hook conspiracy theory is way over the line but I’m sure Youtube will promote quentin tarantino’s new film exploiting the Charles Mansion situation. Or wait, didn’t he do a WW2 film exploiting minorities who were targeted by Hitler? But that’s ok because he’s a Black Lives Matters activist therefore he’s a “good guy.”

>1,000 per month seems to be the agreed starting point.

Kuzrgesagt did a youtube video on it. Can't link because rules. There's also a Project dedicated to it. Something called Universal Basic Project? I think. One of the proposed problems to it is that people would leave the city for cheaper living. There's actually a lot wrong with it from my point of view. A UBI + Socialized Healthcare would tip the scales at, at least 7 trillion a year. Not to mention we need a military, police, DEA,FBI, CIA, welfare, food stamps. This is probably the main problem I have with the idea of Socialism. It claims to be for the worker and the farmer but it helps lazy fucks, college students and ruins blue collar workers. How you ask? Because according to tax brackets someone who works 40 hours a week in an office making 50k gets taxed the same as a blue collared worker putting in 60 hours a week in the summer of Texas that's hardly a system that favors the working class. I know, you didn't propose our current system. But there is nothing more fair than a flat tax rate with zero exemptions.

>that's nice but doesn't really matter. for someone worried of people not understanding economics you should prob do some reading on MMT. And to think of something like UBI merely in terms of how much it costs on paper, as opposed to a more comprehensive analysis of its social/budget impact is very sophomoric.

So my answer wasn't fully complete because I broke this answer in half with the refuting point below it.

So specifically why does America spend more than anyone else per citizen? Like I said we have a big assortment of people here who bring their own genetic problems. I don't mean to pick on Blacks but to point out, they make up 60% of the NFL. Why you ask? Because the way the NFL's rules work it tends to favor speed, specifically sprinting. The NFL released a book in the early 2000s(back when they didn't think it was controversial) that African-Americans win the top 50 slots for speed in the NFL try-outs. However Whites aka European descent won 45 out of 50 for strength. African-Americans also have 10% more testosterone on average which makes them more likely to have heart disease later in life. Korean's also have a history of kidney disease. Bottom line is that people are different. If you refute this you're basically denying evolution. These differences raise the cost. Also when its been known that smoking cigarettes causes cancer for…ever? Have you ever smoked a cigarette? Its not even remotely appealing but yet when I drive past the community college loath and behold a bunch of 18 year olds are standing out side smoking cigarettes which obviously causes cancer. Apparently their lives are too stressful though. The plus to a privatized health care system is that it isn't my problem. I don't care if you shoot heroin or smoke meth. As long as you're not obstructing my day and you understand the consequences of your actions its fine by me. But then the next presidential election they want me to pay an additional 20%(My personal guess, probably more) in federal income taxes to pay for their Socialized Healthcare.


 No.105196

File: 2afbe30dbf00d0d⋯.jpeg (473.58 KB, 1500x1000, 3:2, hugecock.jpeg)

>>105195 continued

>>between the fact that your surplus value already goes to the capitalist you sell your labour time to and the fact that you refuse to see social security as an investment to the society you exist in, well, you seem like a terminally ideological Anglo liberal.

I did have a bit of a typo in my answer so I don’t mind clarifying. Social Security will double within the next ten years and along with it medicaid. If I remember correctly its over 1.5 trillion currently. That’s right. I don’t want to pay into a failing system. I’ll tell you what. Keep everything I’ve paid into it for the last 12 years and I agree to pay it for the next 10 if I can opt out of it after that and never receive any benefits and never have to pay into it again. You and the government will never agree because you know that I’ll work to secure my future and I am financially competent enough to accommodate for taxes. I’m simply a cash crop. At least when I was in the military they acknowledged it. A Health Saving Account proposed by Rand Paul would be way better of an idea that a socialized health care. Even if its set at really low percentage over the course of your lifetime it will roll-over and you can give it to your kids. With enough generations there will be enough funds to cover all possible medical bills. Also acknowledge the points I made about LASIK eye surgery in the last post. Have you ever heard of a 401k? My last company would match me 4% if I put in 5%. God damn those evil corporations for looking out for my retirement. That shouldn’t be legal.

>by practically all metrics, a socialised system of medicine is better than a 'free market' model. Americans already pay way, way more for healthcare than Europeans with good systems of socialised healthcare, even per capita, and even in terms of public expenditure. [pic related]. The problem with american healthcare is not that there is too much regulation, it's that corporate interests rule the country, which is a consequence of capitalism.

Refuted this last point. Yes I did. Stop lying to yourself.

>>that would then make it an exception more than anything, we are discussing your claim that monopolies in general are permanent only "if they have government force"

Yea the NET neutrality thing. Also Unions are bad. They tend to do this thing called lobbying. 15 out the the big 20 lobbyists are Unions. I’d also like to point out that not even NASA has achieved a monopoly on space exploration. Think about that for a second. It costs 10,000 dollars to send 1 lb into space. Such evil corporations. I know some of the rockets look like huge cocks(I used to make and inspect parts for them) but they do work(much like their battery powered cousins).


 No.105215

>>105195

>Instead you're refusing to acknowledge them.

Considering that you are just typing random shit that has nothing to do with anything preceeding it, yeah, I have no intention of wasting keystrokes on it.


 No.105223

>>105215

The lefts only source of power. Denial.


 No.105226

>>105027

>>105020

From what I have just read, it seems like the BO from leftypol is an arrogant redditfag tranny that want's his own personal army.


 No.105254

File: 40f06a3e54d62c0⋯.jpg (242.55 KB, 2122x1600, 1061:800, 100% pure ideology.jpg)

>>105090

>>105195

>When do you justify censoring and when don't you?

when the positive outcomes of censorship overtake the negative outcomes.

that's not really what we are talking about though, we are talking about corporate censorship, and corporates are dictatorships. they can do whatever the fuck they want with their 'property'.

>Giving people money doesn't create an incentive to work. Look at welfare recipients.

that's entirely tangential and by no means the sole social-economic factor affected. should peoples' livelihoods be guaranteed at a reasonable, they'd be able to refuse bullshit jobs and focus their energies on riskier possible work such as starting a business or whatever.

>When AI and automation replaces these jobs I will be willing to re-evaluate my stance on UBI & healthcare.

AI and automation replacing jobs is a meme. a productivity multiplier isn't going to end work anymore than industrialisation did. automation also doesn't happen automatically. if we have permanent low-wage capitalism, as people like yourself tend to advocate for with anti-union policies, it'll never be worth it to invest in automation.

>A UBI + Socialized Healthcare would tip the scales at, at least 7 trillion a year. Not to mention we need a military, police, DEA,FBI, CIA, welfare, food stamps.

UBI is usually proposed to replace existing welfare. This also has some issues with cost of living and gentrification and whatnot, but those shouldn't even register as a problem to you liberals.

the potential benefits of UBI would also reduce the need for such massive investment in internal security/repression apparatus.

>This is probably the main problem I have with the idea of Socialism. It claims to be for the worker and the farmer but it helps lazy fucks, college students and ruins blue collar workers. blah blah taxes

anon maybe you should try and learn what the fuck socialism is before making these posts. its neither tax policy, redistribution, or social policy. Try production for use, classless society and workers' control of the means of production.

>But there is nothing more fair than a flat tax rate with zero exemptions.

but that's simply not true. even 200 years ago people such as Adam Smith or Pierre Proudhon realised that the wealthy benefit disproportionally from state functions, and thus it simply makes sense for them to contribute more to it. Not to mention that what is 'fair' or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is what effect a thing has on real life, to real people. I can't see what purpose it would serve to ruin a poorfag with 500$ a month taxes where a richfag wouldn't even notice.

>Bernie Sanders is so noble when its someone else's money he's promising to give away.

or maybe he looks at the dumpster fire that is his country and thinks maybe something should be done about it?

>blah blah ethnicities r different These differences raise the cost.

how do you propose these minor differences translate to such absurdly higher costs?

>Countries in Europe are more homogeneous than ours.

fewer nonwhites, but much more heterogeneous than america.

>Countries that have low spending and good health were already populated with people of good health

what bullshit is this? you think Americans have been as unhealthy as they are now for more than 50 years, which is when most systems of social medicine were set up? you think Brits for example are healthy?

> yet when I drive past the community college loath and behold a bunch of 18 year olds are standing out side smoking cigarettes

I would call that cutting off the nose to spite the face. who cares about your moral outrage nonsense, how about you think what is actually good for yourself and the society you exist in.

>Also for anything to be legal in a Capitalistic society full consent in a transaction is required.

for anything to be legal it has to be written in the law. 'full consent' implies absolute knowledge which is impossible. all of this is also completely tangential to the question you quoted. answer the question about permanent monopolies requiring 'government force'

>Also Unions are bad.

I also would like to work for pennies 14 hours a day before dying at 25 from chemical exposure after a 15-year career, praise the free market!

>Also I like coming here because that's the only way you really learn things about other ideas is by having these types of conversations with people you disagree with.

if so, you aren't doing a very good job of learning. this conversation is at a very superficial level, because you don't acknowledge the extremely high level of ideological abstraction you are arguing on.


 No.105316

>>105254

the thing i don't get about ubi is won't it just cancel out if everyone gets the exact same amount


 No.105328

>>105254

>that's entirely tangential and by no means the sole social-economic factor affected

That has been that guy's entire argumentative strategy: ignore points made and go off about some random shit that does not follow the conversation.

>>105316

How do you mean?


 No.105329

>>105328

>How do you mean?

it's like if everyone gets the same amount on top of what they make then won't capitalists just hike their prices to reflect that


 No.105345

>>105329

Why would that happen?


 No.105346

>>105345

>manarchist doesn't understand capitalism

the real question is why wouldn't it happen, if people who could already afford something now have more money to spend on it then prices will naturally rise to reflect this


 No.105348

>>105346

The prices of commodities fluctuate around the equilibrium of exchange value. They cannot just be raised arbitrarily. For the value of commodities to rise collectively the labor that goes into them must likewise rise.


 No.105377

>>105348

>They cannot just be raised arbitrarily

they absolutely can be, but anyway this isn't arbitrary, it's just that flatly distributing the same amount of money will get swallowed up by inflation


 No.105379

File: 8139f46a3a0c71a⋯.png (51.17 KB, 702x667, 702:667, Russian_Constituent_Assemb….png)

What was the SR's ideology like?


 No.105422

>>105377

>they absolutely can be

Not system-wide they can't and not without artificially limiting productivity. We are not talking about one petit-bourgeois convenience store owner; we are talking about macroeconomics.

>it's just that flatly distributing the same amount of money will get swallowed up by inflation

Money serves as the universal equivalent to all other commodities. Regardless of whether or not it is fiat currency, it must reflect the value of the commodities produced within a given system–in this case global capitalism. For the relative value of money to decrease, the relative value of commodities must increase. That means at least a proportionate increase in productivity, thus creating greater wealth which would need to be consumed largely by workers.

Now, if what you are suggesting is that the bourgeoisie would simply direct their state puppets to rapidly devalue currency by means of printing at a high rate, there would be significant undesirable ramifications to such a move. Firstly, it would render the dollar unstable, which would encourage a dangerous level of speculation. Secondly, it would exascerbate the very hole in the system that UBI is intended to patch. People would see the theft very clearly, and they would be financially desperate. Add to that the economic turmoil caused by rapid inflation, and you have a recipe for disaster, for the ruling class that is. Also, such a move would create conflict between the manufacturers and the financiers–the manufacturers being far more keen on the devaluation than the financiers who just had the debt that they are owed slashed in value. No, rapid inflation would hardly be worth the problems that it would cause.


 No.105523

>>105422

>rapid inflation would hardly be worth the problems that it would cause

the point is that it's really not up to the people in charge, that if you give the same amount of money to all people, including those who already can afford commodities, then the sellers of these commodities, always seeking to maximise profit, will individually charge more for them


 No.105533

>>105379

Some were spineless socdems. Others were to the left of the Bolsheviks. There’s a reason why they split into multiple parties during the Russian Civil War.


 No.105537

>>105422

>For the relative value of money to decrease, the relative value of commodities must increase.

this is true.

>That means at least a proportionate increase in productivity, thus creating greater wealth which would need to be consumed largely by workers.

this is not true.

A significant increase in money supply would, assuming it were equally distribution, increase the prices of commodities since those prices are being measured relative to money. The underlying exchange-values of commodities to one another would remain the same, but prices could go up or down depending on the money supply. Marx talks about this in Capital, vol.1 chapter 3.

Let us assume that the money supply is 100 and there are 100 commodities. These commodities, no matter what their different exchange-values are, must have prices equal to 100. If you double the money supply, ceteris paribus, then the new sum of prices now equals 200. The prices of individual commodities will increase because the total money supply has increased.


 No.105542

>>105523

Bear in mind the reflective relationship between money and other commodities. If the exchange value of commodities were to rise in such a way as to offset a large system-wide increase in wages, then it would require either a corresponding decrease in the value of money or a substantial increase in socially necessary labor time in order to achieve that effect. So, either the bourgeois state would have to print money like it is going out of style, or employers would have to pour more money into overhead. Either way, the bosses are not happy.


 No.106739

If you have parents who are class traitors - cops and the like - but you betray them by being loyal to the working class and agitating for socialism instead of following in their footsteps, are you a class traitor in the other direction?


 No.106742

>>106739

No. Friederick Engels was a class traitor in the other direction–a bourgeois owner of the means of production who advanced the cause of the proletariat.


 No.106772

If co-ops aren't socialism, then they are capitalism. My question is: what kind of capitalism are they? That is, what qualifier should one use to differentiate them from current capitalism?


 No.106789

>>106772

No. There are some things that are not socialist that are also not capitalist.

Depending on the type and structure of the co-op, it can be a socialist or even communist organization to the degree that implementing either of those things is possible while still inside of a capitalist global economic situation.


 No.106856

>>106772

This is correct >>106789

A co-op could be any mode of production really. For my answer I'm assuming you're talking about worker-owned enterprises that operate in a market producing commodities for profit (worker co-ops).

>My question is: what kind of capitalism are they?

I'd call it proletarian capitalism. They have rid capitalism of the capitalist class. Or more precisely proletarianized the capitalist class and capitalized the proletarian class into a synthesis where the workers are the managers but the conditions force them to exploit themselves in order to profit and be competitive.


 No.106870

What exactly is "critical theory"? Is it inherently leftist?


 No.109308

I read Wage Labour and Capital today and I looked at the study guide on Marxist.org and I'm stumped on the question "What will cause a commodity in short supply to fall in price?". The question concerns the section "By what is the price of a commodity determined?". As far as I can tell Marx concludes the opposite that "If, then, the supply of a commodity is less than the demand for it…Result: a more or less considerable rise in the prices of commodities." Later on he says "the production of such a commodity (that is, its supply), will, owning to this flight of capital, continue to decrease until it corresponds to the demand, and the price of the commodity rises again to the level of its cost of production; or, rather, until the supply has fallen below the demand and its price has risen above its cost of production,".

So can someone explain when an inadequate supply leads to a decrease in price? Thank you.


 No.109428

>>109308

Probably a typo. But not an impossible situation. There is competition among the sellers and there is competition among buyers. If the competition among sellers is intense enough, even a commodity in short supply might go lower in price. If there is only a very small and shrinking quantity left in stock, but new and cheaper production methods have been already adapted and supply is about to explode, then… Well, but what Marx talked about in the chapter are the usual relations between supply and demand. So I say typo.


 No.109430

>>109428

Thank you I was thinking the same thing but figured that it wouldn't hurt to ask


 No.109431

File: 3cfc0ec03e59855⋯.jpg (514.06 KB, 1074x1332, 179:222, efa2517e234bdb95a99cacebef….jpg)

>>109308

> What will cause a commodity in short supply to fall in price?

A decrease in demand…?


 No.109710

File: 6cb6d8691f8642b⋯.jpg (1.1 MB, 1456x2173, 1456:2173, AdamSmith.jpg)

Who, historically or in current times, would be an example of a high-hanging fruit right-winger?


 No.109849

>>109710

That depends quite a bit on what counts as right-wing. Smith, as far as I know, was very critical of rent and saw the 'free market' as meaning free of exploitation more or less. In general, right-wingers have a shallow reading of 'their' thinkers, at least economists - most of whom aren't all that right-wing when read in full. Said thinkers are deep when considering with all their leftward nuance, but righties read the only the shallow summaries.

This deserves its own thread tho imo.


 No.109854

>>109710

Like >>109849 said, but I would add that where right-wingers get deep into anything, it's for the sake of apologetics. Religious philosophy is probably the best example of this. They'll take very narrow premises and construct highly elaborate arguments that can be obliterated by explaining why a premise was wrong or why their selection of premises was shitty. It's usually weirdly abstract or specific things that matter to nobody nowhere, i.e. how many angels dance on the head of a pin kind of shit.


 No.109855

>>109854

>>109710

Also worth noting - right wing arguments center around justifying the status quo. Often it doesn't matter what the status quo it is, and defenders of capitalism will use arguments that were also used to defend feudalism. There's little if any connection between the ideological justifications and reality, since they're not justifying a specific system so much as the idea of maintaining a status quo. This prevents much concreteness or specificity.

That's why the more sophisticated stuff tends to be highly abstract or specific to situations that are irrelevant. The right wing argumentation there is not about relating to reality directly, but is a performance meant to demonstrate the sophistication of right-wing thought. In other words, public masturbation.


 No.109858

>>109710

I don't know if you've read the Wealth of Nations but Smith would have been disgusted by modern self-proclaimed free market libertarians. As >>109849 has said, Smith was quite aware of the exploitation of the world and his economic thesis attempted to solve it from within the market paradigm itself unlike modern "libertarians" who don't give a shit about the poor or even acknowledge exploitation (i.e. "just pull ur bootstraps up n work hard u parazide ;-DDD).

In all honest, I do believe Smith would have been a socialist of some sort in our time, or at least a great critic of this system as he did not live to see the extent of its atrocities against human beings.

>>109855

>Often it doesn't matter what the status quo it is, and defenders of capitalism will use arguments that were also used to defend feudalism. There's little if any connection between the ideological justifications and reality, since they're not justifying a specific system so much as the idea of maintaining a status quo. This prevents much concreteness or specificity.

This. However, unlike in the past I don't know if it's merely indoctrination. It has a sort of "edgy appeal" in modern times to be apologetic to an obviously broken and monstrous beast of a system and I'm sure even they know it.


 No.110155

>>109849

>>109858

I'm aware that Smith is a more nuanced thinker that most people think (Chomsky goes as far as to call him an anti-capitalist), but wouldn't his support of markets still qualify him as right-wing?

I posted his pic because I couldn't think of anyone else, but basically I was looking for people critical of leftists ideas that aren't PragerU-tier. I might make a thread for it if this one isn't appropriate.


 No.110159

>>110155

>but wouldn't his support of markets still qualify him as right-wing?

Only if Tito was also "right-wing."


 No.110161

>>110155

>wouldn't his support of markets still qualify him as right-wing?

Personally I think that market socialism is where the actual political center would be. The key difference between left and right wing is whether control of society is with the people or some authority. Marksucc is sort of halfway there because while you don't have some person or group of people as an authority, you do have the "will of the market" which is an abstraction separated from the consumer behavior it's derived from. Of course, markets are also shaped by marketing, but there would be a lot less of that when businesses are managed by workers or communities.

>>110159

I would say regardless of Yugoslavia's actual system as it existed, Tito was moving society to the left and was therefor left wing.


 No.110414

Is there any way to filter flags?


 No.110424

>>110414

No, but there should be.


 No.111269

File: cbdb4a5c4c7b208⋯.jpg (82.09 KB, 791x1000, 791:1000, o.jpg)

Is there an archive for /leftpol/ or /leftypol/? Literally my first time posting.


 No.111272

File: ab0f7388f199e25⋯.jpg (277.73 KB, 1655x438, 1655:438, archive.jpg)


 No.118064

Why are apolitcal normies suddenly memeing about Ben Shaprio all of a sudden?


 No.118128

>>118064

He and his ilk have real money behind them and memes are the hip new astroturfing medium. Also he's basically a living meme at this point. I think a lot of people meme him in the same way as Alex Jones. Shapiro is at least that vapid and his FACTS AND LOGIC which DESTROY his opponents are pretty cringe-inducing. A lot of his arguments (e.g. there are two genders deal with it) have already been memed to death so he's probably hard to take seriously for anyone who's older than 12.


 No.123104

File: 7ae6ccca5a4b2f7⋯.png (87.52 KB, 288x408, 12:17, Gramsci.png)

Why is Gramsci generally considered a bad theorist, and also did he influence Foucault and Zizek in regard to cultural hegemony?


 No.123132

Does dialectical or historical materialism lead to the conclusion that

1. ideas and beliefs are an inconsequential 'surface layer'

2. ideas and beliefs emerge as a consequence of material conditions, or

3. people's behaviour isn't influenced by what they believe to be true?


 No.123145

>>123104

He has a bad reputation on /leftpol/ because at least half of the userbase here are crypto-fascists who denounce their own comrades to appeal to /pol/ where the meme is that Gramsci is the grandfather of "Cultural Marxism". Everywhere else he is widely read, even by our enemies who do not shy away from learning our best.


 No.123151

>>123132

It depends on your interpretation of the terms. In their usage by the so-called orthodox "Marxists" and the official Stalinist line, they lead to a very mechanistic world that has little to do with Marx's theory. As for your points:

1. Ponder about what "class consciousness" and/or "false consciousness" implies.

2. This is obviously true for any materialist philosophy, not as a conclusion, but the starting point!

3. See the first point.


 No.123154

>>123104

>Why is Gramsci generally considered a bad theorist

I wish, every single academic pseud sucks him off like there is no tomorrow.


 No.124998

Is it absolutely true that all new value/utility is created by labour?

How would you prove that?

Is there a hypotetical observation that could falsify it?

What does it exactly mean for a factor of production to be the source of new value?


 No.125004

>>124998

It's circular reasoning. Value is created by labour, because labour is the process that creates value.


 No.125009

>>124998

>How would you prove that?

Step 1 would be to define "value."


 No.125029

File: 5a6c136f003ab39⋯.pdf (521.89 KB, Marx - Value, Price, and P….pdf)

>>125009

>Step 1 would be to define "value."

I'm going to use the definition in Value, Price, and Profit section VI. Value and Labour. Summary:

<all commodities are exchanged in proportion to an abstract value, with various proportions to each other via this medium of exchange

<the common element of commodities is social labor, i.e. producing the product for exchange rather than personal use. Two components here: [1] produced with labor and [2] produced for exchange.

<Value thus can only be present if the product is to be exchanged, and value is a measure of the amount of labor it takes to make the commodity (on average)

<Amount of labor invested in an object (not as an individual object but as an example of the abstract commodity) is measured in the time taken to produce it on average - Socially Necessary Labor Time (SNLT). This includes the labor needed to reproduce a worker's labor, like training, medical care, or cooking.

>>125004

>It's circular reasoning.

It sounds like that, but if you read Marx's definition (Section VI of the pdf) you can see that he starts from the premise that value exists, per observation, and reasons from that to find where value comes from. We can take value as a given because we observe it in people's behavior, therefore there's no need to justify the existence of value. Marx's conclusion is based on the common element where value (distinct from price) increases, which is someone doing labor to increase value.

>>124998

>Is it absolutely true that all new value/utility is created by labour?

>How would you prove that?

I think in this case the burden of proof is to give an example of value being created without labor being done. You're effectively asking for proof that no value can ever be created without labor. Best example I could think of is if someone managed to create self-replicating fabrication machines, but that's more like labor being made obsolete. It's outside the context of a value-based economy, because if it's not limited by labor performed where would its value even come from? They could run until supply exceeds demand and then stop until it looks like scarcity might happen again. How would you even measure the value in that case?

>Is there a hypotetical observation that could falsify it?

Yeah, an example of value being created without labor.

>What does it exactly mean for a factor of production to be the source of new value?

Depends who said it. If we're going by Marx's idea of value, you're probably talking about adding value through the labor process. Depending on semantics it might also refer to innovation creating new opportunities to create value (which still requires labor to actualize the value-creation potential). Are you quoting something?


 No.125106

File: e330a7af429f8eb⋯.png (3.53 MB, 2477x1794, 2477:1794, f69d75f92377bc2f0b0b651403….png)

>>124998

Utility (i.e., use value) and value are two different concepts in Marx's critique. Utility just determines if something is useful to you or not, Marx is not too concerned with that. From an economic point of view (regarding the capitalist mode of production Marx knew), it's either present or not. Utility is not exclusively created by labour, as he admits it in his Critique of the Gotha Programme:

>Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.

Value is the ratio of how much you can exchange a particular commodity for. On one side the commodity you want to exchange is given in concrete, on the other side however there is only commodities in general, abstract, as a quantity. There must be something in common for the two sides otherwise they wouldn't be comparable and exchangeable. This common thing is what Marx calls value. Since one side is abstract, it does not have utility (use value), which is qualitative, it can have only quantitative properties. The only common thing that all commodities share is that they are products of human labour: if nothing else, someone "brought them to the market", which is still labour. So the only thing that this value can be is human labour. But! Since it is in the abstract, it cannot be the actual work that was put into a particular commodity, it must be work in the abstract too. If you leave aside all qualitative properties of work, you are left with the quantitative side, which is labour time. As we are still too abstract, we can't tell the actual time spent working on an abstract commodity, so we are left with the average (Marx calls this the socially necessary labour time – socially necessary here means the time needed by society on average to produce the commodity). This is how capitalism allocates labour time in its huge system of division of labour.


 No.125109

>>125106

That is as succinct a description of the Labor Theory of Value as I have seen.


 No.125550

Is there a good summary of the history of the USSR online, either in video or text format?


 No.125551

>>118128

>for anyone who's older than 12.

Except that folks thrice and quadruple that age listen to him. Although they diss him bc he's not a loudmouth husky bear like Alex Jones.


 No.125553

>>125551

psychologically 12 then


 No.125741

As much as this sort of nitpicky attention to detail might be philosophical autofellatio, what exactly is 'work' or 'labour' by definition?

Do machines or labour saving devices perform labour?

Does nature perform labour in, for example, growing things that have utility?

I'd like to hear some critique of my view which is that labour is by definition 'behaviour which creates value' and that machines and nature do indeed perform it.

Related to:

>>125106


 No.125744

>>125741

>As much as this sort of nitpicky attention to detail might be philosophical autofellatio, what exactly is 'work' or 'labour' by definition?

Sometimes there's a distinction between work and labor based on its social character, e.g. work as labor in the context of class being forced on a worker. The general/basic definition is similar to the definition of work in physics, going something like:

<action performed by an animal or automaton that rearranges matter and energy in a way that's more useful than before

>Do machines or labour saving devices perform labour?

No. The value in a machine is "dead labor" which was imbued into it by the workers who made it. That value is realized in full when "living labor" (a worker) uses the machine to make stuff. If the machine can make useful things without the involvement of a worker then it has effectively become a worker. We're nowhere near this point yet, "fully automated" factories are still directed by humans deciding what to produce.

>Does nature perform labour in, for example, growing things that have utility?

Yes, living things perform labor to sustain themselves. They're generally not conscious of it though. For example of the difference between living and dead labor - a plant engages in living labor to make sugar with sunglight. That sugar stores the dead labor of the photosynthesis process. Then when the plant uses the energy (respiration), it combines living labor (cell metabolism) with the dead labor (sugar it made) to produce energy. An herbivore uses living labor to eat the plant and digest it, and uses the dead labor of the nutrients the plant has accumulated and stored for itself.

>I'd like to hear some critique of my view which is that labour is by definition 'behaviour which creates value' and that machines and nature do indeed perform it.

You're right that nature does. Even if you think only humans do it, we are part of nature. But the difference between us farming and hunting doesn't make it not labor, nor does the difference between us hunting and a lion preying. The key difference is that a machine has to transcend its nature as dead labor, by performing work that wasn't directed by a person or by relicating itself indefinitely without the need for further labor input.


 No.125770

File: 3fbdadb4f246fb8⋯.png (51.03 KB, 675x441, 75:49, world-rate-of-profit.png)

>>125741

>As much as this sort of nitpicky attention to detail might be philosophical autofellatio, what exactly is 'work' or 'labour' by definition?

Not at all. It is an important distinction. In fact, when he was working on the English translation Engles was delighted that the English language had two words, "work" and "labor," where his native German only had one, "werk." As he used the term, "work" was the actual physical act of production as done by each individual worker. "Labor," on the other hand, was an abstraction of social production. That is to say that "labor" is not the production of one individual but rather a mathematical expression of the system-wide production of a given kind. Recognizing the distinction between work and labor is essential to understanding Marx's version of the Labor Theory of Value.

>Do machines or labour saving devices perform labour?

Absolutely not, and that is central to the crisis theory that is the "falling rate of profit." Machines can indeed be employed to create use-values (things which are of use to a given person), but they cannot create value–a defining quality of labor. A gross simplification of the reason for this is that once machines are employed for production they shortly become employed system-wide, eg. when QFC purchases automatic cashiers to cut down on overhead Safeway, Piggly Wiggly, Fred Meyer, and all the rest quickly follow. Thus the initial savings on overhead that the pioneering company enjoyed are quickly lost as all of the competetors lower their prices accordingly to capture market share. What's left after the competition is no increase in the profit margin for any of the companies, and, on the contrary, they now have the economic imperative to purchase those machines in order to remain in competition with the businesses that do have the machines. The cost of doing business in the industry went up and the industry's profit margins went down accordingly. There is a lot more to the falling rate of profit, but automation is a significant part of it.

>Does nature perform labour in, for example, growing things that have utility?

The "spontaneous produce of nature" as Marx and Engels called them, do not produce value, although they are a tremendous source of use-values. The reason for this is that, until they are commodified, they are freely available to any and all who would use them. For example, water from a natural spring is not a commodity that participates in the economy of a local capitalist society until somebody puts the spring water into a plastic container and ships it off to be sold to someone who does not have ready access to the spring.

By the way, I don't know where >>125744 is getting his stuff from, but it's not Capital.


 No.125784

File: c58b0ae0af00943⋯.jpg (166.06 KB, 1200x1000, 6:5, 23582c40dc6ea922bf71990a40….jpg)

>>125741

You are attributing creative human activity to dead machines and the abstract concept of 'Nature'. That's fetishism.


 No.125790

>>125784

I clearly have missed something since everyone agrees I got this wrong. But take washing clothes, for example. Seems to me that since a washing machine washes the clothes, it does the work which human beings used to do.


 No.125791

>>125029

>Yeah, an example of value being created without labor.

But under the theory, all value is created with labor by definition. In order to falsify it, wouldn't it be better to find a commodity which value changed over time (because of a new labor saving technology for example), but which equilibrium price stayed exactly the same?


 No.125804

>>125790

What makes something "labor" is not that it performs work (see: the distinction between "labor" and "work" in >>125770) but rather that it is human activity that creates something useful to its owner only as a thing to be exchanged. A thing to remember with the Labor Theory of Value is that it does not describe all of the productive forces in the world, just specifically capitalist production. Sunlight may fall from the sky and be useful, but it does not have an owner who would sell it to those who would consume it. The peasant farmer may grow wheat and even send some to market, but what he makes he himself consumes; the wheat is a useful item and not a commodity.

Another important distinction to make is the distinction between a human laborer and what Marx called "the means of production"–those things that people need to make the things that they make. The machines that we were talking about are means of production. Systemically, workers need to utilize the means of production in order to create commodities which are then socialized. Think of the automatic cashiers from >>125770 not as "cashiers" but rather as tools by which the people who operate them multiply the productive power of their own labor. Likewise, your washing machine does not itself wash clothes. Instead it only makes it possible for a human to wash clothes more easily. No matter how complex, a machine is ultimately just a tool which requires human labor in order to be productive.


 No.125839

>>125770

>By the way, I don't know where >>125744 is getting his stuff from, but it's not Capital.

I got the labor/work distinction backward, my bad. The only liberty I took was talking about non-humans having the capacity to work which isn't wrong. Living things producing use-values is work, but it lacks its character as labor unless it's contextualized as such. You can absolutely employ livestock to perform labor, for instance. This can be extended to a possible AI or something similar, since a system like that isn't bounded by the initial input of labor. What's the difference between a human-like AI that sustains its existence and a human laborer you cloned?

>>125784

There's actually very little that's strictly a "human quality." Machines may not have the ability to work, but a lot of the things in nature do.

>>125790

The washing machine is simply realizing the value imbued in it by the worker who made the washing machine (which degrades over time as it wears down, transferring that value into the clothes by maintaining them). It amplifies the labor of the person using it. You still have to put the clothes/detergent in the machine and tell it what cycle to use, as well as do upkeep. You can also think of the machine as amplifying the labor of the people who made it. A bunch of people assembling washing machines to wash clothes is in the end a lot more efficient than if all those people individually washed clothes without machines.

>>125791

>In order to falsify it, wouldn't it be better to find a commodity which value changed over time (because of a new labor saving technology for example)

If the value changed over time, then you're effectively looking at a different commodity for that purpose. Consider the case of mass-produced vs handcrafted goods. They are different commodities, and the handcrafted goods are more valuable because they take longer to make even if there's not much other difference. That's because you can't sell the more valuable goods at the mass-production price and stay in business. Apply this broadly - when innovation happens, the old commodities still have the old SNLT. The new commodities have a new SNLT. The difference from the example is just that they old version is in the past instead of being a luxury item for hipsters.

> commodity which value changed over time (because of a new labor saving technology for example) but which equilibrium price stayed exactly the same?

This would be a bad idea in a competitive setting; you'd want to undercut your competitors. If you have a monopoly or cartel situation then this happens all the time. The reason that the equilibrium price doesn't shift is the absence of the force pushing it downward (undercutting to grab market share). Instead something actually a lot more fucked up is happening here. What would be the equilibrium price (the actual value) is equal to the wages paid to the workers plus the surplus the business extracts from them. This is lower than the actual market price though, with the difference being made up via the markup paid by the customer. The business is in this case extracting value both from the laborer and from the consumer, who are not in a position to have a fair exchange.


 No.125841

Dear Leftpol,

I am posting in here as to politely and unobtrusively not shit up your board.

Although I come to you from /pol/, I am really blackpilling nowadays and see no reason for hope that the white race will exist in, say 100 years from now.

The 'Border Wall' is a joke at this point, and I don't see the United States getting any whiter. As a matter of fact, I only see it getting browner and browner year after year.

'Diversity,' as pushed by the loathsome jews, is the main cause of this browning of America. Having an open Southern Border and the racemixing by the South Americans and the Blacks with whites will continue until we become a mass of dumbed-down mud.

The way I see it, the only so-called whites left will be in Israel and civilization as we know it will come to an end because neither the South American Indians, the Blacks from Africa, or the jews, are capable of creativity and technological invention as the white race is.

When civilization ends, there will be wholesale death, and the race with the largest population will win. Israel will be wiped off the map, and the only intelligent beings, albeit without a soul, will be the Asians.

The Asians are soulless creatures which don't even care about their own to the extent that they think it is part of some 'Karmic Destiny' that someone dies.

I would post on /pol/ but they wouldn't get it because it's so full of half-channers and redditors at this point.

Thanks for listening, I guess.

Bye.


 No.125843

>>125839

>>125791

Also, more directly to your question - you are describing a reduction in SNLT rather than an increase. That's not value being created but destroyed, since if you have some "old-style" commodity made with more labor, its value will drop as well since it's easier to produce now. Even if that particular item took more labor-time to produce, what matters is SNLT. This is like different workers working at different efficiency producing the same commodity.

In order for the opposite effect to happen (SNLT increasing without labor input), you might do something like the opposite of innovation. If you set people back technologically then the SNLT goes up as does the value of a commodity. So maybe you could argue for instance that a natural disaster that destroys technology creates value by raising the SNLT of various commodities that already exist? Seems like there'd probably be enough destruction of value that the increase would be offset.


 No.125845

>>125841

Take your meds, Tyrone.


 No.125846

>>125845

right?

medicate myself so I don't see it anymore


 No.125847

File: 288e3b9df18b095⋯.png (758.52 KB, 720x1111, 720:1111, 14272207b777c27dc0990f7d00….png)

What the fuck is biopolitics?


 No.125855

>>125847

Google it you fucking tard


 No.125857

>>125791

Yep. That is much better.

>>125839

>You can absolutely employ livestock to perform labor, for instance. This can be extended to a possible AI or something similar, since a system like that isn't bounded by the initial input of labor.

Yes, but what you have there are tools, means of production. Even an AI (note the "Artificial") must be produced at a cost; it requires capital to create. As such, the exchange value of what such a sci-fi device/entity might produce will trend toward zero as AI become the industry standard by which such production is performed. Prices go down, and necessary costs go up.

>What's the difference between a human-like AI that sustains its existence and a human laborer you cloned?

The human gets paid wages that are worth substantially less than the value that he produces. You can exploit the human. You cannot exploit the machine.

>The washing machine is simply realizing the value imbued in it by the worker who made the washing machine

Yes, just so.

>If the value changed over time, then you're effectively looking at a different commodity for that purpose.

Oh no, the value of any given commodity is constantly changing to reflect changes in the socially necessary labor time that is required to produce it.

>Consider the case of mass-produced vs handcrafted goods. They are different commodities, and the handcrafted goods are more valuable because they take longer to make even if there's not much other difference.

They are the same commodity, assuming that they fulfill the very same uses to the consumers. The hand-crafted item may serve as a status symbol or give the purchaser a warm-and-fuzzy for supporting a small business or some other intangible rot. That intangible difference would in effect make it a different commodity, as it would imbue the commodity with a use-value that the machine-manufactured commodity does not possess.

>This would be a bad idea in a competitive setting; you'd want to undercut your competitors.

That is true according to the LTV, but his point is that such a scenario would falsify the LTV for just that reason.


 No.125858

>>125855

You don't get how these threads work, do you?


 No.125861

>>125857

>Yes, but what you have there are tools, means of production.

If you treat them as such. Human slaves are also "means of production" and any humans are produced at a cost. The whole point of the transcendent AI is that once it exists you don't need to keep making more. Either they're an AI (software) that can be copied or they're hardware that can self-replicate.

>The human gets paid wages that are worth substantially less than the value that he produces. You can exploit the human. You cannot exploit the machine.

This only holds if it's merely a machine. We can produce laborers with our biology. To say we could not produce laborers with technology is to ascribe some special essence to humans.

>Oh no, the value of any given commodity is constantly changing to reflect changes in the socially necessary labor time that is required to produce it.

That's what I'm saying though. I'm referring to the commodity in the past vs the present where there are different SNLT. Even though the material object hasn't changed, the social context has, so the commodity (which isn't the object itself but the social context) has also changed.

>The hand-crafted item may serve as a status symbol or give the purchaser a warm-and-fuzzy for supporting a small business or some other intangible rot.

Being a status symbol is a utility in a class society where signalling status matters. My point is that the value is determined by the labor. The fact that people buy status symbols just lends the commodity use-value (which is binary). The comparison is just to illustrate the difference and that the relative prices is based on the labor/value involved. It works the same way whether it's two contemporaneous commodities or the "same" commodity across time. I made the comparison to illustrate how that generalizes across different contexts.

>That is true according to the LTV, but his point is that such a scenario would falsify the LTV for just that reason.

Uh, no. The fact that a business will undercut competitors to grab market share is not a result of where value comes from. This is true according to neoclassical economics as well. Just because LTV agrees with something doesn't mean it's a consequence of labor being the source of value.

>>125858

It's for asking actual questions, not "give me a 101 lecture on [topic]"


 No.125872

>>125029

>>125106

>>125744

>>125770

>>125791

>>125804

>>125839

>>125843

>>125857

>>125861

Goddamn there's some top-notch effortposting here on occasion.

This seems like relatively basic stuff - LTV, that is - but it seems simultaneously very subtle and detailed if one wants to genuinely and profoundly understand it. Is Marx the best source to study this, or is there some better source for getting all the subtleties and details absolutely right?


 No.125874

>>125872 (me)

Not to imply that Marx doesn't know his shit - no doubt he does - but that it's not obvious that he should be the best when it comes to clarity.


 No.125881

File: dde8e7baa39bb83⋯.pdf (51.6 KB, Law, Larry - Revolutionary….pdf)

>>125872

>Is Marx the best source to study this

Yes.

Marx is not perfect but he has an impressive clarity of thought, and he had OCD/autism about getting the analysis right. A lot of the interpretation of his ideas are pretty far off, so it's best to start with what he actually said. Everyone should try to get through (and understand) Capital at some point, but start with his more basic works so you have an outline that you can fill in.

>is there some better source for getting all the subtleties and details absolutely right?

IMO the best thing to do is to try to apply this kind of logic to real life, because even though the general picture of capitalism is the same, a lot of the details have changed and developed (and that's what's actually relevant to people today). You should still read older stuff though. Most of it remains relevant, and you're better off looting some good ideas from the ideological marketplace than working harder to come up with similar ideas from scratch. Pamphlet related.


 No.125889

>>125858

>plz spoonfeed me!!!!


 No.125915

>>125872

>Is Marx the best source to study this, or is there some better source for getting all the subtleties and details absolutely right?

Marx's Capital is far and away the most exhaustive explaination of the theory and of capitalism in general. And boy is it exhaustive. Exhausting too, but it is still an absolutely fascinating read. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is an easy read and features an earlier, simpler version of the theory. David Ricardo in Principles of Political Economy and Taxation advocated the LTV, and Engels' notes in Capital address some of Ricardo's claims.


 No.125917

>>125861

>Human slaves are also "means of production"

No, they are not. They are slaves, which is an economic class.

>any humans are produced at a cost

No, there is no capital invested in the creation of a human.

>The whole point of the transcendent AI is that once it exists you don't need to keep making more. Either they're an AI (software) that can be copied or they're hardware that can self-replicate.

Okay, sci-fi shit. This particular rabbit hole just leads to the question of what makes a man Spoiler: it's the woman in his arms just 'cause she has big titties.

>Being a status symbol is a utility in a class society where signalling status matters.

Like a capitalist society, which is the only kind of society to which the LTV is applicable.

>I made the comparison to illustrate how that generalizes across different contexts.

It was an incorrect comparison. A commodity does not become a different commodity when the SNLT required to produce it changes. Twenty yards of hand-woven linen serves the tailor just the same as twenty yards of linen that was woven on an electric loom.

>The fact that a business will undercut competitors to grab market share is not a result of where value comes from.

Exchange value is the equilibrium around which price fluctuates. To falsify the equilibrium is to falsify value.


 No.125930

>>125917

>>Human slaves are also "means of production"

>No, they are not. They are slaves, which is an economic class.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. That's why I put MoP in scare quotes. Animals are used as slaves in production. They are different from humans insofar as they aren't aware of the social context of production. A mentally disabled person who simply works without understanding is in the same position effectively.

>>any humans are produced at a cost

>No, there is no capital invested in the creation of a human.

Didn't say there was. I said they're produced at a cost (a lot of labor and resources procured though labor). You don't strictly speaking need to invest capital to produce something. You can go into nature and pick berries with your bare hands. Production can occur with zero capital but not zero labor.

>Okay, sci-fi shit. This particular rabbit hole just leads to the question of what makes a man

That's exactly the point I've been explicitly raising. Your definition of work/labor depends on making the distinction between a person and not a person, which is quite arbitrary and self-centered. It's a poor definition which undermines your interpretation of the theory, because it breaks down under very little scrutiny. If you're armed with this logic when trying to explain your ideas to a skeptical audience or adapting it to a different future context, you aren't gonna fly so good.

>>I made the comparison to illustrate how that generalizes across different contexts.

>It was an incorrect comparison. A commodity does not become a different commodity when the SNLT required to produce it changes. Twenty yards of hand-woven linen serves the tailor just the same as twenty yards of linen that was woven on an electric loom.

This part of the post isn't an argument about falsifying LTV. I just wanted to help clarify the difference between a product as a material object and a product as a commodity (social context of production). When the context of production changes, the commodity itself changes, because the commodity isn't the mere physical object but includes the social context of producing that object. Probably should have left out the "in order to falsify it" part of the quote but oh well.

>>The fact that a business will undercut competitors to grab market share is not a result of where value comes from.

>Exchange value is the equilibrium around which price fluctuates. To falsify the equilibrium is to falsify value.

OK, I think we're arguing on different pages here. I agree that the proposed scenario would falsify LTV. What I'm saying is that the scenario doesn't happen, which is what you would see if LTV is sound.


 No.125939

>>125930

>Animals are used as slaves in production.

kys lib


 No.125942

File: ef4dcd4c8306bdb⋯.gif (1.37 MB, 264x264, 1:1, ISHYGDDT.gif)

>>125930

>Animals are used as slaves in production. They are different from humans insofar as they aren't aware of the social context of production.

>Your definition of work/labor depends on making the distinction between a person and not a person, which is quite arbitrary and self-centered. It's a poor definition which undermines your interpretation of the theory, because it breaks down under very little scrutiny.

ISHYGDDT


 No.125943


 No.125965

>>125855

I obviously did you fucking retard, but everything I've found avoids the question and just assumes I already know what it is.


 No.125979

File: 3e797c27f93a239⋯.jpg (17.8 KB, 255x243, 85:81, marxbeer.jpg)

>>125872

I didn't look at the primary sources yet, I recommend watching this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oQ02sTO6PM

I heard Wolff and Cockshott also make good introductions to the subject.


 No.125982

looking for some resources on how you lot solve the calculation problems that come from centralist planning. am not interested in anything i can already find on the wikipedia page pls.


 No.125984

>>125930

Animals aren’t worker’s their means of production.


 No.125987

When the revolution comes what should we do about Porky? Obviously we need to expropriate their private property, but what about their personal property? Should we let them keep it if they co-operate with the expropriation of their private property or should their personal propety be exproperatied?


 No.125990

>>125984

*workers, they're

>>125987

>le literal revolution may may


 No.126008

File: 7819ac624313239⋯.pdf (166.2 KB, calculation_debate.pdf)

>>125982

Read, nigga.


 No.126015

>>125987

If they use it it's theirs. Socialism is not a campaign of retribution.


 No.126018

>>125965

Big dumb nigger


 No.126034

File: e6be2c325f97a45⋯.jpg (199.99 KB, 1329x1074, 443:358, marx ishygddt.jpg)

>>125939

>>125942

>>125943

>>125984

>humanism

Wow this board really has gone to shit.


 No.126048

Are individualism and leftism mutually exclusive? I've seen many communists/socialists portray individualism as counter-revolutionary, often conflating it with Randian objectivism.


 No.126049


 No.126051

>>126048

>I've seen many communists/socialists portray individualism as counter-revolutionary, often conflating it with Randian objectivism.

Get out more with people left wise. It sounds like you've only spoken to uneducated fools who don't know what individualism means.


 No.126057

>>126048

>Are individualism and leftism mutually exclusive? I've seen many communists/socialists portray individualism as counter-revolutionary, often conflating it with Randian objectivism.

Randian objectivism and similar ideas of individuality are definitely contradictory with socialism, but that's more to do with those ideas being retarded than being individualist.

The reality is individualism and collectivism exist in harmony. In the Hegelian sense they are opposites that presuppose each other. To be an individual, there must be a collective to be distinct from; to be a collective you must have numerous individuals. Pragmatically speaking they are mutually reinforcing, too.

Consider the ultimate "individualist" from the lolber/Rand perspective. A single person homesteads and works to provide their own needs. Nobody depends on them and they depend on nobody. Such a person would have to spend all their time working to meet their basic needs. They would have to be a generalist, since their needs include the need of food, clothing shelter, etc which they and they alone must procure. Such a person has no time for discretionary use. Even their thoughts are by necessity bent toward how they may spend their time most efficiently to maximize the likelihood of survival.

Now consider an individual in the context of a collective. This individual (and every other) may indeed specialize (as do the others). This alone increases efficiency. Specialization entails an improvement in whatever work is done, and working for each other allows each member to benefit from each other member's specialist skills. The larger the collective, the more specialization can happen. As can the more redundancy, allowing the burden to be spread thinner. Specialization spurs innovation, making production more efficient still. Innovation by one person spreads across redundant workers' methods and multiplies. The bigger and more sophisticated a collective, the more efficient work becomes and the more your work itself can be personalized. The less time spent doing the minimum necessary work, the more time can be spent on whatever else people want to do. Therefore, pragmatically speaking collectivism facilitates individuality.


 No.126059

File: 6f5199f1cfb9a1e⋯.jpg (50.65 KB, 480x480, 1:1, rand.jpg)

>>126048

also this


 No.126067

Why do you guys deny the reality of race? What are your thoughts on multiculturalism/diversity?


 No.126072

>>126067

Race isn't real. Racism is though. Same way god isn't real but religion is.

>multiculturalism/diversity

Smashing cultures together can cause conflicts, but the main effect is having one culture imported into another as a poor segment of the population. It reinforces beliefs in differences and promotes keeping the minority impoverished.


 No.126074

>>126072

>race isn't real

>smashing cultures together can cause conflict

The hypocrisy. How do you think cultures are created and why is it that Europeans, Africans and Asian have different cultures?


 No.126077

>>126074

>The hypocrisy.

Unless you think the songs people sing are genetically determined, then not really. Culture and biology interact but they're different things.

>How do you think cultures are created

Cultures arise from cohesive groups of people or loosely associated groups. Before the rise of European nations for example, there were all sorts of cultures within what became a single national identity. They're malleable and a product of how people are able to interact. Genetics isn't a part of that, but there's some mild correlation simply because most people in history lived and died within a few mile radius, so there wasn't much mixing.

>and why is it that Europeans, Africans and Asian have different cultures?

There are different cultures within these groups as well. Europe is separated from Asia by mountains and sea, and from Africa by sea. There are similar geographic obstacles within these continents. That makes interaction harder. The more barriers there are (geographical or practical due to the high cost of travel), the less interaction and cultural exchange will occur. When you leave any population alone it will start to diverge. Culture evolves much faster than biology, so those differences are much more profound.


 No.126085

File: 1dd22172e58574b⋯.jpg (176.51 KB, 805x645, 161:129, a very old reddit leddit m….jpg)

>>126067

According to post race advocates it's not that race isn't real, obviously it is, anyone who says it isn't biologically is genuinely retarded since most of their evidence is debunkable and they have no grasp of what race is so literally speaking they are retarded, it's that race can't get in the way of living together if you abolish culture, and things like that.


 No.126095

>>126077

You're claiming that if Europeans, Africans and Asians lived with each other in the same lands, then there would be no or less differences ?

>Cultures arise from cohesive groups of people or loosely associated groups

What would make a group of people cohesive and why? Perhaps it could be their physical similarities, common ancestry and genetics, common language. Humans have a natural tendency to feel comfortable around their own kind.

>>126085

>it's that race can't get in the way of living together if you abolish culture, and things like that

It's also more than just culture. Certain races are more prone to certain behaviors, (blacks are more inclined to commit violence no matter where they are and what incomes they have).

Toronto is a great example. Go back to just ten years ago, Toronto was majority white and was one of the safest cities in the world. Today, whites are the minority and crime and poverty have drastically increased. We can conclude that there is a correlation between race and poverty and crime. Keep in mind, Toronto is basically culture-less.


 No.126104

>>126095

>Certain races are more prone to certain behaviors, (blacks are more inclined to commit violence no matter where they are and what incomes they have).

Got a study to back that up?

Statistics usually don't explain a cause. Do brain scans of black people show more aggression or something? Or are you just pulling that out of your ass.


 No.126107

>>126104

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840

>We have found, in both human and non-human animals, that darker pigmentation is associated with higher levels of aggression and sexuality (and in humans with lower IQ). Lighter pigmentation is associated with the slow reproductive strategy (K) including lower birth rates, less infant mortality, less violent crime, less HIV/AIDS, plus higher IQ, higher income, and greater longevity.

>Templer (2008) added life history variables to the 2006 national IQs compiled by Lynn and Vanhanen (updated from 2002). Templer found that skin color correlated across the 129 nations with Autism Level (−0.91), birth rate (0.85), infant mortality (0.71), longevity (−0.84), rate of HIV/AIDS (0.53), and GDP (0.60). A super-factor accounted for 75% of the variance. Subsequently, Rushton and Templer (2009) found skin color correlated with crime in 113 countries (homicide, 0.34; rape, 0.24: and serious assault, 0.25) as well as with Autism Level (−0.91), GDP (−0.57), HIV/AIDS (0.56), birth rate (0.87), longevity (−0.85), and infant mortality (0.76). Rates of murder, rape, and serious assault correlated with those of HIV/AIDS (0.48, 0.57, and 0.42, respectively). Templer and Rushton (2011) replicated their international findings with data from the 50 US states. Skin color, measured by the percentage of Blacks in the state, correlated with infant mortality (0.41), longevity (−0.66), HIV/AIDS (0.74), birth rate (0.12), murder (0.84), robbery (0.77), assault (0.54), and also Autism Level (−0.48), and income (−0.28).

Even if their brains don't play a role, their pigmentation do


 No.126108

>>126107

*does

Forgive any typos


 No.126118

File: c9713d21a0779d4⋯.jpg (23.6 KB, 335x352, 335:352, fgsfds.jpg)

>>126034

I know right? Now there are people here who think that commodities become different commodities when they are produced by different means and people who don't understand the difference between work and labor and people who do not get that a theory must be falsifiable to be accurate and even people who do not differentiate between humans and the means of production because sci-fi furries and terminators.


 No.126120

File: ed6712c09676481⋯.jpg (60.03 KB, 294x361, 294:361, AH_HAHAHA_FAGGOT.jpg)

>>126107

>J. Philippe Rushton

The guy who got kicked out of the University of Toronto for making his students participate in a survey of how long their penises were and how far they could ejaculate? Top LEL


 No.126130

>>126067

>the reality of race

What?

It is a reality that human populations are different. But pray tell, what's the objectively factual number of race-categories, and where are their boundaries to be drawn objectively and non-arbitrarily?


 No.126132

>>126107

>associated

That doesn't even claim to show a causal link.

It should worry you that you are clearly posting on autopilot.


 No.126134

File: 4cba4e6cd01fe1a⋯.jpg (26.9 KB, 672x372, 56:31, Statistics.jpg)

>>126132

Who needs to determine causality when they have statistics?


 No.126163

>>126048

who Tankies?


 No.126295

>>126095

>You're claiming that if Europeans, Africans and Asians lived with each other in the same lands, then there would be no or less differences ?

Yeah, because they would stop being Europeans, Africans, and Asians and instead be [new location]ans.

>What would make a group of people cohesive and why?

Biologically, it's how much they are reproducing with each other. Different groups don't mix much but a single group intermixes mostly with itself. Culturally, it's how much they are communicating and having their ideas interact. If you put different groups together they will start the process of mixing and the distinctions will disappear over time. Relative differences between populations increase with separation and decrease with co-mingling. Diversity/difference slides back and forth based on isolation, and if you actually examine the biological and cultural history of these groups it's obvious that they don't break down well into the popular racial categories. North Africans have a lot in common with south Europeans for instance. Much moreso than they do with sub-Saharan Africans.

>>126118

None of this is what I was saying. If you want to get mad at somebody get mad at somebody we disagree with, fam.

>Now there are people here who think that commodities become different commodities when they are produced by different means

For the purpose of measuring value, a commodity is different if SNLT is different, yes. That property (the most important property to capitalism) is different.

>and people who don't understand the difference between work and labor

Not everyone even makes that distinction, but I did. I just got the terms backward. Thanks for pointing out the mistake.

>and people who do not get that a theory must be falsifiable to be accurate

That's not even remotely what I was arguing. I was trying to suss out the best way to falsify it in theory and putting it in context why such a scenario doesn't happen. And this nit pick isn't even correct lmao. A theory absolutely does not have to be falsifiable to be "accurate." It has to be falsifiable to be valid. Whether or not something is true isn't a question of the testability, but of how it compares to reality assuming you could test it. It's entirely possible to make claims that are unfalsifiable but true. The point of Russell's teapot for instance is not that it's necessarily untrue but that we can't know if it's untrue.

>and even people who do not differentiate between humans and the means of production because sci-fi furries and terminators.

It's hilarious that you're bitching about falsifiability while also balking when I point out edge cases that show the limits of your theory.


 No.126304

File: b970f789df86a55⋯.png (240.53 KB, 293x365, 293:365, cryptkeeper2.png)

Halp comrads! I have found incriminating evidence against a closet nazi, who a big player in an American arms dealing company! evidence being that he's a nazi who works government contracts He handles contracting for the DOD, navy, ect ect for military armaments. How do I turn him in? Who do I turn him in to? What should I do? Is there a reward?


 No.126323

>>126120

I never knew that, though that’s not an argument

>>126130

>human populations are different

Yes, you got that right

> But pray tell, what's the objectively factual number of race-categories, and where are their boundaries to be drawn objectively and non-arbitrarily

I’ll be honest, I can’t give you a direct answer because that information has pretty much been distorted throughout history. Usually, it’s caucasoids, negroids, mongoloids. Each race has its own sub races and each sub race has its own ethnicities. Just because we don’t know the objective truth, doesn’t mean the objective truth doesn’t exist and is immediately arbitrary. If I don’t know if 2+2=4, does that make it arbitrary?

>>126132

Are you asking what triggers violent and criminal behaviour in blacks?

>>126295

If Europeans, Africans and Asians live together in the same land, then they would most probably cling to their respective cultures or at the very least, practice their own cultures in private, to the point where they voluntarily segregate themselves? It’s foolish to think that these groups of people would easily give up their identities. What are you to do if these people are ethnocentric and compete

with each other based on their racial identities? What if people refuse to co-mingle? You keep hoping that these people are going to abandon their natural cravings of familiarity.

And yes, south Europeans and North Africans are similar to each other. But guess what? They are both caucasoids. They may share gentic links. I might add that coincidentally, southern Europe is less developed than Northern Europe and North Africa is more developed than sub-Saharan Africa. That’s just food for thought.


 No.126333

>>126323

>I never knew that, though that’s not an argument

Pointing out that the scientist who performed the research that you are using to support your argument is notorious for practicing hilariously bad science for dubious purposes is absolutely an argument. Sources matter, /pol/yp.

>Just because we don’t know the objective truth, doesn’t mean the objective truth doesn’t exist and is immediately arbitrary.

What it does mean is that you cannot rightly claim to have objective truth. Sometimes I wonder if rightardism could be cured by a course in scientific methodology.

>If Europeans, Africans and Asians live together in the same land, then they would most probably cling to their respective cultures or at the very least, practice their own cultures in private, to the point where they voluntarily segregate themselves? It’s foolish to think that these groups of people would easily give up their identities.

Read some of the autobiographies of black American expats living in Africa. From the perspective of a materialist it is absolutely hilarious to read about their discovery that they do not actually have any culture in common with Africans. There is no culture that races carry with them.

>What are you to do if these people are ethnocentric and compete with each other based on their racial identities? What if people refuse to co-mingle?

Kek. The first thing that any two human groups who come into contact with one another do is co-mingle.

>That’s just food for thought.

No, it's not, you brainlet; it's implied implications devoid of context.


 No.126595

>>126333

>black American expats

That’s because their ancestors were forced to live in America. Overtime, they dropped their traditional African cultures and languages. Here’s the thing, though. You can’t say that they assimilated completely into the majority WASP culture. Africans in America developed their own languages (Ebonics) and cultures that were and are different from the majority WASP Americans. Even though, they lived in the same lands, they came together as a group to create a NEW culture that was exclusive to that group. They didn’t co-mingle with each other. Over the years, they still managed to retain their culture and it has not died out. That is why an African-American may face difficulty when they try to assimilate into Africa.

Despite all of this, you have to agree that it’s easier for a black American to assimilate into an African country compared to others (ex: euros and Asians)


 No.126596

>>126107

>In 40 species of wild vertebrates, darker pigmented individuals are more aggressive and sexually active.

40 species! WOW! That's like, a whole 0.06% of all vertebrates. This explains everything.


 No.126599

>>126323

>If Europeans, Africans and Asians live together in the same land, then they would most probably cling to their respective cultures or at the very least, practice their own cultures in private, to the point where they voluntarily segregate themselves?

Only to a degree. In the short term this is the dominant thing you'd see, but the longer they spend together they more they would mix together. This is what's happened with populations interacting throughout history.

>It’s foolish to think that these groups of people would easily give up their identities.

They wouldn't. As time went on, identities would evolve. The idea of "white people" for instance didn't always exist.

>What are you to do if these people are ethnocentric and compete with each other based on their racial identities? What if people refuse to co-mingle?

Different people will do different things. Some will isolate, some will mingle. As people mingle, they will create cross-cultural and phenotypically mixed people which will prompt the development of new identities.

>You keep hoping that these people are going to abandon their natural cravings of familiarity.

Most people won't, but a significant minority is enough for the effect to take place. This kind of thing happens over generations and centuries.

>And yes, south Europeans and North Africans are similar to each other. But guess what? They are both caucasoids. They may share gentic links.Distinctions like "caucasoid" are arbitrary and not based on biological evidence. If you were to walk from North Africa to the southern tip, you would pass by a continuum of genetic relatedness (and more genetic diversity than any other straight line you could draw on Earth, since ~90% of human genetic diversity is contained in Africa).

>I might add that coincidentally, southern Europe is less developed than Northern Europe and North Africa is more developed than sub-Saharan Africa. That’s just food for thought.

Economic development doesn't happen in a vacuum. Europe and Africa have a history that's predominantly shaped their economic development. Africa has been subject to colonialism (and continues to be subject to imperialism), and southern Europe has been subject to political instability.


 No.126600

What are your thoughts on ContraPoints? She’s a great leftist, right?


 No.126601

>>126600

Contrapoints is a pinko. She has sympathies but is not actually left wing. Her idea of socialism is a project for Straight White Men and not addressing issues that anybody else deals with. She could be a comrade, but she'd have to learn what socialism actually is first. Better than most of BreadTube™ though, since she will do research and has coherent ideas unlike the others, who are basically just doing opinion vlogging.


 No.126607

>>126599

>Africa has been subject to colonialism

True. But their history didn’t start with colonialism. Before colonialism, they had thousands of years to reach European levels of civilization with more resources to boot. They failed.

>Only to a degree. In the short term this is the dominant thing you'd see, but the longer they spend together they more they would mix together. This is what's happened with populations interacting throughout history.

It has happened yes, but not always. It’s a gamble. It depends if the groups are willing to fight for their own people. Look at the Muslim conquest of Spain. Sure, there were Spaniards who mixed with them (probably because they were forced to), but the Spanish people managed to retain their cultures and recoquered their country.

>They wouldn't. As time went on, identities would evolve. The idea of "white people" for instance didn't always exist

“White people” isn’t an “idea.” It’s a term that is synonymous with European. Recently, people have co-opted the term to include Arabs and mestizos, which is a complete distortion of the term.

>Different people will do different things. Some will isolate, some will mingle. As people mingle, they will create cross-cultural and phenotypically mixed people which will prompt the development of new identities

And the destruction of old ones.

Your entire argument is self-defeating. Even if new cultures are formed through mixing, they’ll still come into conflict with other cultures and peoples. As someone said earlier in this discourse, the only way to solve this is to completely abolish the idea of culture. This can’t happen as humans have and will always automatically group up and create cultures themselves, no matter if it’s based off geography, genetics, physical appearance, language etc (and even race). The only thing mixing does is destroy the old cultures to create new ones.

From the sound of it, your proposition is for everyone to mix with each other until we all look and act the same and will be empty culture-less humans.


 No.126608

>>126607

>From the sound of it, your proposition is for everyone to mix with each other until we all look and act the same and will be empty culture-less humans.

My proposition is that "race realism" is a bullshit concept because such distinctions are arbitrary and in constant flux. The start of this chain is here >>126067


 No.126609

>>126595

>Even though, they lived in the same lands, they came together as a group to create a NEW culture that was exclusive to that group.

It wasn't exclusive at all. In fact, it was the basis of several pop culture phenomena in the ninteenth and early-twentieth centuries. As much a individuals were segregated they still were culturally intertwined.

>They didn’t co-mingle with each other.

Oh yes they did, even before the end of slavery. Tell us all about it, Sally Hemmings.

>Over the years, they still managed to retain their culture and it has not died out.

Bullshit they have. Twenty-first century "black" culture is nothing more than the same commodity fetishism that the supposed rest of American culture is.


 No.126610

>>126595

>Despite all of this, you have to agree that it’s easier for a black American to assimilate into an African country compared to others (ex: euros and Asians)

Arabs had no problem with it.


 No.126612

>>126607

>Before colonialism, they had thousands of years to reach European levels of civilization with more resources to boot.

We're not talking about "thousands of years." We're talking about four or five centuries that followed the biggest economic windfall in human history. Europe was a global backwater until De Gama and Columbus.

>It has happened yes, but not always.

Yes, always. 100% of the time.

>but the Spanish people managed to retain their cultures and recoquered their country.

Spain was invented in the fifteenth century out of several kingdoms, some of which spoke different languages.

>“White people” isn’t an “idea.” It’s a term that is synonymous with European.

"European" is another idea, just an arbitrary distinction.

>Even if new cultures are formed through mixing, they’ll still come into conflict with other cultures and peoples. As someone said earlier in this discourse, the only way to solve this is to completely abolish the idea of culture.

Look at you conflating ""culture" with people.


 No.126622

>>126612

>>126607

>>126608

Everyone involved in this conversation will eventually find their way to /pol/. Just watch


 No.126639

>>126622

/pol/ is easy to find. It's right here >>>/pol/

They're bigger than us. Anybody here knows who they are. We're on this board because we want to be.


 No.126832

>>126608

Thanks to years of misinformation and distortion, many people started to believe that it's all just arbitrary. A race is distinguishable by its genetics, especially in comparison to other races.

>>126609

>Sally Hemmings

>one instance of race mixing proves your argument

>Bullshit they have. Twenty-first century "black" culture is nothing more than the same commodity fetishism that the supposed rest of American culture is

There are black Americans who embrace Kwanzaa and Pan-Africanism.

>>126610

There is a shit ton of racism between Arabs and Africans. So what if they share a continent? In Morocco, there is discrimination against blacks and in Mauritania, Arabs are enslaving blacks. How's that for assimilation?

Arab is not the same thing as Africnan

>>126612

We're not talking about "thousands of years." We're talking about four or five centuries that followed the biggest economic windfall in human history. Europe was a global backwater until De Gama and Columbus

The most important thing is that Europe managed to uplift itself before Africa. Doesn't matter who was responsible for it or when it happened

>Yes, always. 100% of the time.

Are we just going to ignore ethnic tensions in Austria-Hungary and the genocides of Yugoslavia?

>"European" is another idea, just an arbitrary distinction

It is not arbitrary. Anyone who can trace a predominant amount of their genes/ancestry to Europe is European. The term white people was used in the New World to distinguish Europeans from the non-Europeans. Overtime, the term was co-opted to include non-euros. You seem to be unaware that language and information can both be manipulated.


 No.126845

>>126832

>A race is distinguishable by its genetics, especially in comparison to other races.

Prove it. Show me an actual race in genetic terms and not just a phenotype.

>one instance of race mixing proves your argument

One instance? Are you fucking kidding? American blacks are about a quarter white on average, and it has been that way for a long damn time.

https://splinternews.com/if-you-re-black-dna-ancestry-results-can-reveal-an-awk-1793862284

>There is a shit ton of racism between Arabs and Africans.

So? We are talking about integration into societies, not the mean words they say to each other.

>The most important thing is that Europe managed to uplift itself before Africa. Doesn't matter who was responsible for it or when it happened

Bullshit it doesn't. Europe did not accumulate weath because of some extraordinary quality that Europeans possessed. A handful of little wooden sailboats full of poxy guys with the flu accidentally depopulated two continents and created a hemisphere-sized loot bonanza. That is the entire reason that Europe is anything other than the backwards feudal nightmare that it was before Cortéz couped Mexico.

>Are we just going to ignore ethnic tensions

Yes, because tensions amount to fuck-all when delineating cultures. You can draw lines of tension all throughout any given culture, which, by the way, is exactly what the social justice tards love to do.

>and the genocides of Yugoslavia?

Civil war.

>Anyone who can trace a predominant amount of their genes/ancestry to Europe is European.

Genes are not a function of geography. They do not spring out of the ground, and they do not belong to continents, let alone the arbitrarily-defined corner of a continent. People live on continents and pass through continents. Furthermore, those continents do not contain isolated or distinct populations. People travel just as they always have, and when they travel they tend to fuck the people that they find along the way. Celts fucked Latins who fucked Phoenicians who fucked Egyptians who fucked Etheopians who fucked Arabs who fucked Uighers who fucked Han who fucked goddamn Mongorians who fucked t*rkmen who crossed the Behring Sea and populated North America. Where along that train do genes become tied to a particular place?

Too far in the past? Consider a modern American. Regardless of what continents his ancestors were run out of, he is a North American in that he lives there and has ancestors who lived there. The same is true of a European, even if that European happens to be a Finn whose ancestors fucked goddamn Mongorians who fucked Han who fucked Uighers who fucked etc.

>Overtime, the term was co-opted to include non-euros.

Genes do not belong to a place, as we have plainly seen, so what makes a person from a place other than the physical reality that he happens to live there?


 No.126853


 No.126858

>>126853

I love that "race realists" never get past the abstract for this study. It uses a particular set of alells to distinguish between self-identified groups, but check outhow it breaks those groups up. Although the studied Hispanics, they are not their own racial category. Apparently, Mexicans are genetically indistinguishable from half-English and half-Chinese people, because not only are Europeans one monolithic block, but that block includes Arabs, North Africans, Jews (ZOMG), and everyone else whose ancestors spent any time around the Mediterranean, but the "East Asian" block covers absolutely everyone from Cape Horn to Finnland.

The hilarity doesn't stop there. Since they only performed the studies in a particular part of the United States and Taiwan, the "black" category has to be listed as "African American." The reason this is significant is that American blacks nearly all trace their ancestry to a particular region of West Africa along the Bay of Benin. That means that the "black" race is broken into seperate phenotypes between populations that are currently in Africa. That is to say nothing of the Micronesians and Australian aborigones.

tl;dr The study blows race the fuck out while dividing humanity into groups based on phenotypes that in no way conform to race.


 No.126860

>>126858

>around the Mediterranean

Correction: Mesopotamia. "White" stretches east of Persia.


 No.126973

>>126612

>"European" is another idea, just an arbitrary distinction.

"Arbitrary" is a term thrown around by people who mistake simple dictionary definitions for the makings of actual existence. The use of the term as such only indicates that the user is incapable of imagining anything less simple than the workings of their mind.

>>126845

>A handful of little wooden sailboats full of poxy guys with the flu accidentally depopulated two continents and created a hemisphere-sized loot bonanza. That is the entire reason that Europe is anything other than the backwards feudal nightmare that it was before Cortéz couped Mexico.

Then why are Finland and Sweden wealthier than Portugal, the country that got the richest colonies?


 No.126991

>>126845

>So? We are talking about integration into societies, not the mean words they say to each other

Are you implying that enslaving blacks in Mauritania is “integration?” Are you also implying that blacks who are at odds with arabs in North Africa is integration as well?

>Yes, because tensions amount to fuck-all when delineating cultures. You can draw lines of tension all throughout any given culture, which, by the way, is exactly what the social justice tards love to do

You still can’t deny that different ethnic groups who live with each other don’t add fuel to the fire

>civil war

Do you seriously think that the civil war came out of a vacuum? The different Slavic ethnic groups didn’t want to live with each other anymore and fought for their own countries. This caused them to kill each other based on their ethnicity and religion. The factions that fought in the war were divided along ethnic lines

>Genes are not a function of geography. They do not spring out of the ground, and they do not belong to continents, let alone the arbitrarily-defined corner of a continent. People live on continents and pass through continents. Furthermore, those continents do not contain isolated or distinct populations. People travel just as they always have, and when they travel they tend to fuck the people that they find along the way. Celts fucked Latins who fucked Phoenicians who fucked Egyptians who fucked Etheopians who fucked Arabs who fucked Uighers who fucked Han who fucked goddamn Mongorians who fucked t*rkmen who crossed the Behring Sea and populated North America. Where along that train do genes become tied to a particular place?

>people fucked around which caused people to have multiple admixtures, therefore race isn’t real


 No.126992

>>126991

>You still can’t deny that different ethnic groups who live with each other don’t add fuel to the fire

should be:

>You still can’t deny that different ethnic groups who live with each other add fuel to the fire


 No.127002

>>126973

>"Arbitrary" is a term thrown around by people who mistake simple dictionary definitions for the makings of actual existence.

And this type of irellevent derailing is done by disingenuous sophists who find themselves cornered and without a counter-argument. "Arbitrary" is accurate, and no amount of weak-assed argumentums ad hominem will change that.

>Then why are Finland and Sweden wealthier than Portugal, the country that got the richest colonies?

Oh, that is a fascinating bit of economic history that perfectly illustrates how capitalism fundamentally changed imperialism. New Portugal and New Spain were not occupied in the same way that old empires like Rome and China had with their provinces. Portugal and Spain lacked the enormous armies that would make such direct occupation of two huge continents possible. Instead they were occupied by bourgeois adventurers who had been denied the opportunity to advance in Europe–second sons, bastards, and desperate men who had just enough means to hire a retinue large enough to carve out a plantation-sized kingdom. Spain and Portugal appointed viceroys who ensured that the conquistadors paid their taxes most of the time, but only varying fractions of the taxes ever actually made it back to Iberia. Competing powers flooded the seas with pirates who plundered the galleons laden with treasure.

Meanwhile, the conquistadors themselves are growing spectacularly rich. It does not matter to them what happens to their taxes after they put them on the treasure ships, and the global market from American silver and sugar is insatiable. Even better, they quickly discover that the ships that take their goods to market do not have to belong to their distant home countries. Brits, Dutchmen, Frenchmen, and Danes all have ships, and they are eager to trade manufactured goods for them. Sure, it's illegal, but that has never stopped the bourgeoisie from undertaking a profitable venture. With wealth just springing out of the ground and cheap deals available everywhere, it isn't long before the children of the broke bastards who invaded the New World are even more wealthy and powerful than the first-born nobles back home. By the nineteeth century the viceroy of Mexico was significantly more rich and powerful than the king of Spain was, and the Portuguese colonies along the Indian Ocean had precious little to do with their home country.

In Europe, the wealth that was pouring in from the New World only partly filtered in through Iberia. Pirates and smugglers ensured that the rest of the sea-going countries of Europe shared in the windfall. Also, manufacturing centers in France, Britain, the Netherlands, and elsewhere made a killing selling their products not only to Spaniards and Portuguese but to everyone else who was able to insinuate themselves into the trans-Atlantic trade. Additionally, China–the world's undisputed economic juggernaut–began shipping its own manufactured goods into Europe in order to get some of that sweet silver. Not two centuries after 1492 Spain and Portugal had been eclipsed not only by the rest of Europe but also by their former colonies.

But "lol niggers" is so much simpler to understand, right?


 No.127005

What reading material should I try if I want to familiarize myself with planned economy of wartime or soviet ? I want to read TaNS but may as well familiarize myself with what has been tried before age of digital computation.


 No.127008

>>126612

It’s unfair to call Europe a global backwater before de Gama and Colombus and colonialism. Does the Renaissance ring a bell?


 No.127010

I've heard more mainstream support for slave reparations….. Ordinary white people who were never slave owners paying ordinary black people who were never slaves. Is there any actual support for this outside of reverse racists and Africa fetishists?

Also my critisms of this laughable idea

>Had president Lincoln not been shot and followed through with the 40 acres and a mule it probably would have been in Liberia, not America.

>One big handout isn't going to fix things for black people and a collective sorry fund is only going to make race relations worse

>I could just as easily make the case for reparations for the adversity my people have had in the 20th century


 No.127012

>>126991

>Are you implying that enslaving blacks in Mauritania is “integration?”

Integration is when a new element is incorporated into an existing system and henceforth acts as a part of that system. It is not when every individual component within a system is regarded as equal. Slaves do not occupy a seperate system than their masters do. They are for all practical purposes interdependent. The behaviors that characterize a master's lifestyle are determined to a large extent by the practical reality that he possesses slaves. Likewise, a slave's lifestyle is determined by the fact that he has a master. They have just one collective culture, although each plays a seperate role within it.

>You still can’t deny that different ethnic groups who live with each other don’t add fuel to the fire

Vague metphors like "add fuel to the fire" are counterproductive when performing analysis. Describe exactly what different ethnic groups living in close proximity to one another does (apart from them routinely having sex with one another) and how that happens.

>Do you seriously think that the civil war came out of a vacuum?

Yes, a power vacuum.

>The different Slavic ethnic groups

Think about this absurd narrative that you are proposing. Different sub-groups of a sub-group within the "white" racial category who all speak the same language and have been living side by side for decades can no longer stand to be near one another, because they are so incredibly different. Utter tripe. What happened is that a power vacuum opened with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, and different competing military factions attempted to take advantage with the backing of various foreign powers. They drew ethnic divisions to solidify a power base and went about trying to grab as much as they could.

>people fucked around which caused people to have multiple admixtures, therefore race isn’t real

Considering that has been going on since the dawn of the species, yes it obviously does. Tell me, what was the genesis of any particular race? When was it not a collection of mongrels? Dates and places.


 No.127016

>>127010

The only necessary criticism is:

>white people who were never slave owners paying ordinary black people who were never slaves.

You can't achieve justice for the dead. They are beyond any help. Furthermore, there is nothing just about making the living responsible for the debts of the dead.


 No.127021

File: 7b3f1a322850d51⋯.jpg (97.73 KB, 600x457, 600:457, MansaMusa.jpg)

>>127008

A couple city-states on the Italian peninsula rediscovering art styles from a thousand years prior is not the least bit impressive compared to what was going on in East Asia, India, and the Middle East. Hell, the inhabitants of the Andean Plateau and the Valley of Mexico were doing more impressive things in the fifteenth century without an ancient civilization to borrow from. Even West Africa was wealthier than Europe. Oh, and before you start talking about De Vinci and other Renaissance scientists, remember that in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.


 No.127029

>>127021

Dude, you are arguing against years of conditioning that civilization is when you have statues and columns. (Also part of the psychology behind the confederate monument shit)


 No.127030

>>127016

Also important things to note.

<Benefitting from a bad thing doesn't mean you are responsible for that bad thing happening.

<Being responsible for a bad thing doesn't mean it's within your power to fix it.

We should be concerned about identifying problems and coming up with solutions. Laying blame accomplishes nothing except to help some people feel self righteous.


 No.127033

>>127021

I agree with your overall position but Mexico and the Andes both had ancient civilizations to borrow from (Teotihuacan in Mexico, the Andes had more predecessors like Wari, Tiwanaku, and Nazca but none quite so dominant AFAIK)


 No.127085

I've heard it claimed on several occasions that Marx expected capitalism to fall within his lifetime. True or made up?


 No.127087

>>127085

Possibly in his younger undeveloped idealistic years pre Paris commune, other than that definitely made up


 No.127095

>>127085

I like how Wolff described it recently. At first Marx and pals thought they could get to communism by reasoning with people how it would be better (marketplace of ideas basically) and when that didn't work he realized it would be a long haul and he needed to get serious about understanding capitalism.


 No.127099

File: d52087c988cea26⋯.jpg (170.18 KB, 800x544, 25:17, 800px-Angkor_Wat.jpg)

>>127029

The really crazy thing is that even by that absurd metric Europe was a backwater. Before Columbus and de Gama Ethiopians were carving cathedrals out of solid rock, the Inca were building elaborate palaces with terraced gardens on top of mountains, Cambodians were turning jungles into colossal temple complexes, and that's to say nothing of what the Chinese and the other khanates were doing.


 No.127106

File: 0d3a27d4c40d181⋯.jpg (38.71 KB, 800x700, 8:7, tsoukalos.jpg)

>>127099

There's an explanation for that too.


 No.127131

>>126845

>Show me an actual race in genetic terms and not just a phenotype.

Let's put on our thinking caps. How do you think phenotypes are formed? Why do you think different people have different phenotypes?


 No.127146

File: 3c109f93cd8147e⋯.jpg (515.84 KB, 1608x1296, 67:54, 70400f5902f1f1ff6655ccb9f8….jpg)

Why is Islamic extremism not recognized as a variant of far-right extremism?


 No.127153

>>127146

Because it's the fault of white people somehow, so you should just say 'fuck wypipo'.


 No.127154

>>127146

most likely because Hezbollah, Assad, and Qaddafi exist and they are all based.


 No.127155

>>127154

>Assad and Qaddafi

>Islamic extremists


 No.127178

>>127002

>And this type of irellevent derailing is done by disingenuous sophists who find themselves cornered and without a counter-argument. "Arbitrary" is accurate, and no amount of weak-assed argumentums ad hominem will change that.

It is highly relevant, since your argument is based entirely on the assertion that the existence of something rests on it having a simple, dictionary style definition. Now instead of begging the question by uttering your dismay of me taking notice of this, provide the evidence that something being "arbitrary" or not relates in any way to the actuality of its existence.

>disingenuous

Not an objective scientific category, therefor arbitrary, therefor invalid by your own standards.

>sophists

Not an objective scientific category, therefor arbitrary, therefor invalid by your own standards.

>But "lol niggers" is so much simpler to understand, right?

You didn't in any way explain why Sweden and Finland, two countries not involved in colonization nor colonial trade, are richer than the European countries that had the richest countries, if the wealth of Europe is wholly dependent on colonization and the colonial trade as you claim.

>>127099

>The really crazy thing is that even by that absurd metric Europe was a backwater.

Not at all, none of those came close to the architectural feats of the gothic cathedrals, especially not the Ethiopian monolithic churches, which are tiny in comparison and do not require much architectural knowledge.


 No.127214

File: 6ae317159dad06a⋯.jpg (11.12 KB, 201x251, 201:251, images.jpg)

File: ca6e51d3b7002cb⋯.jpg (196.36 KB, 960x1280, 3:4, roman_sculpture.jpg)

File: 8794a263c36bbf6⋯.jpg (92.62 KB, 333x570, 111:190, portrait4.jpg)

File: aa294de70ce529b⋯.jpg (514.34 KB, 1600x1050, 32:21, Alexandermosaic.jpg)

>>127021

>A couple city-states on the Italian peninsula rediscovering art styles from a thousand years prior is not the least bit impressive compared to what was going on in East Asia, India, and the Middle East.

That's pretty disingenuous given that the art they were rediscovering was from a high point that wasn't surpassed till the Renaissance and that this rediscovered art is merely the meagre surviving remnants of a much richer heritage of whose best works have perished.


 No.127221

>>127029

It’s way more than just architecture and artwork. Which civilization discovered reason, law of motion, developed modern science as we know it? What else am I missing? What about the common and civil law systems? No one is saying art and architecture is the only part of civilization.

>confederate monument

There’s no psychology behind it. People have the right to defend their history and culture

>>127002

The Swedes were great at agriculture. They managed to build up the agricultural industry in a cold fucking country.

>>127021

>>127099

The thing about European/western civilization is that they are the only ones who varied, expanded, and improved their culture. Sure, there were other civilizations that did noteworthy things, but Europeans managed to surpass them


 No.127295

File: 13154283b325554⋯.png (96.57 KB, 912x578, 456:289, chinaindiaworldeconomyhist….png)

File: 7642a8761e912ee⋯.jpg (186.27 KB, 800x817, 800:817, europe-lat-long-map.jpg)

>>127221

>People have the right to defend their history and culture

What "right"? This sounds chauvinist, to fawn over an abstract loosely defined identity and characterise it through rose tinted glasses. Your existence is mere circumstance, it's hubris to be so vain about it.

Finland is the colder less agricultural one, Sweden's population centres are a similar latitude to Scotland and Northern England.

Europe may have surpassed the rest of the world at one point but this success wasn't guaranteed or inevitable, nor should it be taken for granted. As Europe had previously languished in the shadow of Asia, so too will it again as China and India shift the equilibrium back into their favour with the innovations and institutions they've recently acquired and their ascendancy won't care that they owe it to the west in the same way that the west didn't care that China "gave" them paper and gun powder and India gave them numerals.


 No.127302

>>127295

>This sounds chauvinist, to fawn over an abstract loosely defined identity and characterise it through rose tinted glasses. Your existence is mere circumstance, it's hubris to be so vain about it.

Then show your humility to the earth, and return to it, ashes to ashes, dust to dust.


 No.127310

File: 0e00b1ddece6e7e⋯.jpg (18.38 KB, 400x300, 4:3, nihongin.jpg)

>>127131

>"race realist" rubs his two brain cells together

Phenotypes do not conform to race, that is unless you are going to go with the definition of "white" that includes Arabs, Jews, and Kurds, because they are all in the same phenotype. "Black" is several different phenotypes that get lumped together for no reason besides melanin. Also, every decendent of Native Americans is in the same phenotype as the Japanese.


 No.127312

>>127178

>It is highly relevant, since your argument is based entirely on the assertion that the existence of something rests on it having a simple, dictionary style definition.

Learn to read, retard.


 No.127359

>>127214

>the art they were rediscovering was from a high point that wasn't surpassed till the Renaissance

In Europe. Meanwhile the Chinese had already finished the Forbidden City, the Khmer had built the Angkor Wat, and the Cholas had massive temples all over India.

>this rediscovered art is merely the meagre surviving remnants of a much richer heritage of whose best works have perished.

Do you really want to compare Classical Greece and Rome to China and India during the same time period? Even at its peak, Classical Rome was never the cultural capital of the world. And let us not forget that it was a thousand years between Rome's fall and Europe's return to relevence. That is one hell of a dry spell.


 No.127369

>>127359

>Classical Rome was never the cultural capital of the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Capital_of_Culture

No Rome! You're actually right!


 No.127373

>>127221

>Which civilization discovered reason, law of motion, developed modern science as we know it?

The Chinese. As a rule of thumb, if it was invented before the steam ship, some Chinese guy invented it.

>What about the common and civil law systems?

You say that like it's a good thing.

>The Swedes were great at agriculture. They managed to build up the agricultural industry in a cold fucking country.

The Mexicans were great at agriculture. They fed bigger cities than those in Europe by turning a swampy lake in the middle of a jungle into an agricultural wonder of the world.

>The thing about European/western civilization is that they are the only ones who varied, expanded, and improved their culture.

No they weren't.

>Sure, there were other civilizations that did noteworthy things, but Europeans managed to surpass them

Only after Columbus and de Gama set off far and away the biggest economic windfall in human history. Europe's advancement owed everything to that event, and now that capitalism has gone global it is beginning to slip back behind again.


 No.127405

>>127373

>No they weren't.

Then explain how Europe took off while the rest of the world stagnated.

>Only after Columbus and de Gama set off far and away the biggest economic windfall in human history. Europe's advancement owed everything to that event, and now that capitalism has gone global it is beginning to slip back behind again.

Wealth and luxuries such as spices and sugar are not mystical stuff that hyper charges the brain and makes possible advancement.

Did you conclude this theory from pepsi commercials or post-colonial studies?


 No.127669

>>127405

Europe was the place where they tried colonialism. Actually, having Europe be kind of shit was a motivator to settle and plunder other parts of the world. Anybody from Eurasia-Africa would have been wildly successful in the Americas because of the diseases that wiped out like 90% of the indigenous people before the genocides even really got started. The non Europeans just didn't need to leech to be prosperous.


 No.127713

>>127310

Do you honestly believe that Europeans, arabs, Jews and Kurds don’t have different genotypes from each other?

>>127373

>The Chinese.

>what is Ancient Greece

>who is Isaac Newton

>who is Galileo

>The Mexicans were great at agriculture. They fed bigger cities than those in Europe by turning a swampy lake in the middle of a jungle into an agricultural wonder of the world

It’s too bad they couldn’t resist European power


 No.127720

>>127713

>It’s too bad they couldn’t resist European power plagues caught from shagging animals

ftfy


 No.127738

>>127713

>what is Ancient Greece

Less ancient than the Zhou Dynasty.

>who is Isaac Newton

A guy who was born two hundred years after Columbus.

>who is Galileo

An astronomer who came up with a heliocentric model a three-hundred years after Nur ad-Din al-Bitruji did.

>It’s too bad they couldn’t resist European power

If only they had had antibiotics and vaccines.

>>127405

>Then explain how Europe took off while the rest of the world stagnated.

Columbus and de Gama. We covered that.

>Wealth and luxuries such as spices and sugar are not mystical stuff that hyper charges the brain and makes possible advancement.

Why is it that the stupidest people are always the ones to claim that the complexity of a given society is based on the level of intelligence of its people?


 No.127774

File: 97af01f85cdde36⋯.jpg (271.09 KB, 640x845, 128:169, begaydocrime.jpg)

Is Nazi originally left movement?


 No.127775


 No.127875

>>127720

>>127738

Let's just ignore the military might of Europe. Stop acting like the Amerindians would have had a chance if there were no plagues


 No.127889

>>127875

>military might

Spain and Portugal did not even have enough of it to garrison their new colonies or to provide adequate shipping. The British had to rely on private corporations like the HBC for their colonial adventures, and independent privateers and smugglers made up most of their naval power in the New World until after the wars with Spain ended. There was no European military juggernaut. It really was the plagues.


 No.127891

>>127359

You seem to be deliberately omitting the fact that every tallest building in the world from the early 13th century up until 1908 was built in Europe as though it's not worth mentioning.


 No.127892

>>127889

It's funny that you mention pirates, La Fayette a French pirate from Louisiana screwed over the British and was instrumental in their defeat at the hands of the Americans at the Battle of Baton Rouge, albeit the war in 1812 was already over by the time that battle had started.


 No.128034

>>127738

>An astronomer who came up with a heliocentric model a three-hundred years after Nur ad-Din al-Bitruji did.

Actually a Greek known as Aristarchus of Samos first hypothesised that the Earth revolved around the sun in the 3rd century BC.


 No.128070

>>127891

It really is nothing unless you are preparing for trivia night at the pub.

>>127892

Yeah. So?

>>128034

Yes, but Aristarchus never came up with a working model like Nur and Galileo did.


 No.128158

>>128070

You have an inferiority complex, are you one of those "we waz kangz" people? Was Cleopatra and Severus Septimus black?


 No.128159

File: c6d43b47bd196ee⋯.jpg (40.77 KB, 508x338, 254:169, Aristarchus_working.jpg)

>>128070

Aristarchus did have a working model except it couldn't be proven until the advent of the telescope without which one couldn't observe stellar parallax.


 No.128190

>>128158

And you lost the argument based on plain historical facts.


 No.128191

>>128159

It was not really a model, just geometry, which, as you said, is about all anyone can do without a telescope.


 No.128410

File: 5202c375e995191⋯.png (265.93 KB, 720x568, 90:71, oy vey.png)

>Trump will probably sign a law outlawing "antisemitic speech."

>rumors cropping up of him secretly converting to Judaism.

>sending 3 billion to Israel.

Did /pol/ fuck themselves over by shilling for Trump?

Personally I'd find it hilarious if Trump passes the act and /pol/ gets taken down and after that Trump loses half his voter base.


 No.128472

>>128410

>Did /pol/ fuck themselves over by shilling for Trump?

Massively. We warned them back in 2016, so they are getting what they deserve.


 No.128519

>>128410

>Personally I'd find it hilarious if Trump passes the act and /pol/ gets taken down and after that Trump loses half his voter base.

I seriously doubt it's going to clamp down on anti-Semitism from the right ie Jew baiting blood libel and conspiracy theories. This is meant to clamp down on the BDS movement, Israel isn't threatened by republican voting anti-Semites and the establishment ie capitalist classes would prefer it the public were bickering over stupid shit like the Kalergi Plan conspiracy theory or Jews in the media/financial sector rather than realising class consciousness.


 No.128521

>>128519

>the establishment ie capitalist classes would prefer it the public were bickering over stupid shit like the Kalergi Plan conspiracy theory or Jews in the media/financial sector rather than realising class consciousness.

Then why do they ban stuff like that, while welcoming people like Zizek and Chomsky in their media?


 No.128523

What do you call the ' :^) ' face?


 No.128524

>>128521

Outright Jew baiting is banned from the media but that doesn't stop the media from playing dogwhistle politics when it comes to obsfuscating the involvement of Soros in his political activities, or blaming the left for immigration or yellow journalism on crime committed by individual ethnic minorities. Also Zizek isn't considered a threat, he doesn't cater his views in laymen terms and confuses most people and his eccentric mannerisms make him a figure of ridicule amongst leftist detractors (where does he even regularly appear besides the occasional RT appearance?). As for Chomsky, he's never solicited for his opinions on any mainstream media news outlet, it's an outright lie to say his views are welcomed on the media especially when he's effectively blacklisted from the media for his anti-imperialist rhetoric given that the military industrial complex has broad capital investments within the media, notably General Electric having substantial controlling interest in CNN, this doesn't even include the fossil fuel industry which out of self interest also seeks to exclude the left from mainstream discussion.

You'd sooner find rightwing shills from the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Adam Smith Institute, The Tax Payers Alliance et al than someone from the IWW or ANY major union.


 No.128526

>>128523

passive-aggressive


 No.128527

>>128472

It's funny how mentioning Trump selling out to Israel makes YOU the Jew.

I think their brains genuinely can't process the info that /pol/ became a zionist board. Just don't call it that.


 No.128607

>>128526

I know what it stands for, I was just wondering if it has a name. Like how ' ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ' is called the 'Lenny face'.


 No.128630

>>128523

faggotry


 No.128641

>>128519

>Israel isn't threatened by republican voting anti-Semites

Israel isn't threatened by anti-Semites shooting up synagogues either. The only sort of "anti-Semitism" that gets enforcement is anti-Zionist praxis.


 No.128969

>>128519

The capitalist class is disproportionately Jewish, though.


 No.128989

File: 698fd61d4e49071⋯.png (228.29 KB, 476x718, 238:359, croppedImage.png)

>>128969

>Jewish capitalists

Not even in America that's true, but so what if it was? Are Anglo-Saxon boots and whips supposed to be preferable?

As though capitalism's contradictions and consequences suddenly evaporate or even minimise when you remove the Jews, did you seriously think what you posted was in any way insightful?

Further more your statement is even more absurd if we consider China, let alone India, Japan, Korea and the rest of the world.


 No.128991

>>128989

>7 out of the top 15 American billionaires are Jewish.

>Jewish oligarchs make up half of all Democratic Party donors as well as around a quarter of GOP donors.

The fact that the American media has a 100% pro-Israel bias is because Jewish oligarchs run the media. The laws that prohibit the American people from speaking out against Israeli terror and from speaking out against AIPAC are written to protect Jewish oligarchs.

>China, Japan, India

The upper classes in these countries aren’t composed of foreigners because they are fairly nationalistic.


 No.128993

>>128991

>The fact that the American media has a 100% pro-Israel bias is because Jewish oligarchs run the media.

If this is true it still has little bearing on the problems of capitalism in general. Israel deserves a nuke, yes, but the problems of any one particular group with wealth using their power to push one particular goals of theirs are small compared to the problems of any such a group using their power to protect and expand their power. The latter is the same no matter which group is in question.

>The upper classes in these countries aren’t composed of foreigners because they are fairly nationalistic.

And yet they're just as excruciatingly fucked as the US.


 No.129010

>>128989

Further more your statement is even more absurd if we consider China, let alone India, Japan, Korea and the rest of the world

It's really not just because no Jewish population ≠ No Jewish influence


 No.129040

What's the relationship between Marxism or anarchism and existentialist questions of meaning and value?


 No.129042

>>129040

It’s all just spooks, who gives af


 No.129043

File: 3ca15f6f269860f⋯.jpg (52.05 KB, 683x900, 683:900, Sartre.jpg)

>>129040

Existentialism is babby's first philosophy, and the anarchists aren't there yet.


 No.129044

>>129042

Saying "spook" without knowing what the term means just makes you look stupid.


 No.129048

>>129044

I know what a spook is and philosophy is all dumb spooks


 No.129052

File: 5fa918e35a67372⋯.jpg (10.07 KB, 255x174, 85:58, Tea.jpg)

>>129048

>I know what a spook is

Yeah, I believe that.


 No.129054

>>129052

stfu spooked retard


 No.129126

>>128991

You just made all that stuff up about Jews, half of all capitalists aren't Jews even if we take your unverified claim that 7 of the 15 richest billionaires are Jewish. Half of all US wealth in the capitalist class is not owned by the Jews either which you're implying.

Also the military industrial complex benefits from the Israeli destabilisation of the Middle-East and uses Israel as a conduit for American imperialism within the region. You're reducing a multifaceted strategic campaign led by America into one concocted by clandestine Jews. This doesn't even account for Saudi Arabia's complicity in their support for Israel.

>The upper classes in these countries aren’t composed of foreigners because they are fairly nationalistic.

Capitalism is a global phenomenon with little regard for your nationalist feelings, the point being that all capitalists have the same motivations and incentives, the proletariat in those countries suffer under their own bourgeoisie too, singling out the Jews won't help the working class.


 No.129133

>>129054

There isn't an anime face smug enough for projection this blatant.


 No.129136

>>129133

Autists can't interpret facial expressions anyway


 No.129187

>>129126

>Capitalism is a global phenomenon with little regard for your nationalist feelings, the point being that all capitalists have the same motivations and incentives, the proletariat in those countries suffer under their own bourgeoisie too, singling out the Jews won't help the working class.

Capitalism is the name you give to pretty much everything done by everyone, which everything that can be blamed on because of the belief that "abolishing" this phantasm will lead to a near endless supply of free stuff for everyone. As your very conception of capitalism relies on your beliefs of what a lack of capitalism would entail, it is equally fictitious.

Jews, on the other hand, are a very real and very active people, and unlike the systems you project onto an inherently unsystematic world, don't go away when you stop believing in them.

(ugh)

 No.129188

>>129044

All that means, means to me, not you, not to any free-floating Holy Ideal.


 No.129199

>>129187

>Capitalism is the name you give to pretty much everything done by everyone

Read up on some basic economic theory, you shouldn't talk so confidently on something that's well beyond your depth

>which everything that can be blamed on because of the belief that "abolishing" this phantasm will lead to a near endless supply of free stuff for everyone

Did your mother tell you that bedtime story or can you cite how one goes about "abolishing" an economic system predicated on our current material conditions and how this will give us free stuff?

>As your very conception of capitalism relies on your beliefs of what a lack of capitalism would entail, it is equally fictitious.

Oh do elaborate please, it's quite obvious that reading is your kryptonite.

>Jews, on the other hand, are a very real and very active people, and unlike the systems you project onto an inherently unsystematic world, don't go away when you stop believing in them.

Oh the irony! You're the one projecting your imaginary fears onto reality with your Jewish bogeyman, you literally think that removing these Jews will make capitalism (a thing you don't even understand in text book terms) operate better, any delusion to ignore the consequences of a system based on capital accumulation and profit.


 No.129204

File: b54041b35bddfcd⋯.jpg (65.51 KB, 788x460, 197:115, PomoAnti-Pomo.jpg)

>>129188

Do you mean that in a totally non-postmodern way?


 No.129226

>>129199

>Read up on some basic economic theory, you shouldn't talk so confidently on something that's well beyond your depth

There's basic economic theory and there's the way terms are actually used and seen, it's a disingenuous form of pedantry to hold up the former as a shield when the latter is addressed.

>Did your mother tell you that bedtime story or can you cite how one goes about "abolishing" an economic system predicated on our current material conditions and how this will give us free stuff?

Apparently it involves something about everyone working to their ability and everyone receiving to their need. How this exactly works out is anyone's guess.

>Oh the irony! You're the one projecting your imaginary fears onto reality with your Jewish bogeyman, you literally think that removing these Jews will make capitalism (a thing you don't even understand in text book terms) operate better, any delusion to ignore the consequences of a system based on capital accumulation and profit.

You're confusing text book terms for actuality, as if the former determines the latter (magical thinking). I don't believe removing Jews will make capitalism work better because I don't see "capitalism" as having a better or worse functioning, it's simply a container term for currency and property, that I don't see as formative of an entity/system with a will and workings of its own, existing separately from the actual people that use and own such things, as if it were an animistic spirit.

>>129204

Absolute thinking" is the thinking which forgets that it's my thinking, that I think, and that it exists only through me. But I, as I, again devour what is mine, am its master; it is only my view, which at any moment I could change, i.e., annihilate, take back into myself and devour.


 No.129953

File: f5d3542e4a67146⋯.mp4 (465.21 KB, 640x480, 4:3, READ NIGGA READ-bFtcLJVN8y….mp4)

>>129187

>Capitalism is the name you give to pretty much everything done by everyone

<implying capitalism is markets

<implying capitalism is trading

<implying capitalism is money

<implying capitalism is possessions

<implying capitalism is businesses

<implying capitalism is delegation of labor

<implying capitalism is management

<implying capitalism is investment

<implying capitalism is banking

<implying capitalism can happen without state violence

Capitalism is a protection racket in which absentee thieves demand rent in return for access to tools other people need for work

>which everything that can be blamed on because of the belief that "abolishing" this phantasm will lead to a near endless supply of free stuff for everyone.

<implying socialism is welfare

<implying socialism is government

<implying socialism is regulation

<implying socialism is taxes

<implying socialism is equality of outcome

Socialism would be the abolition of the capitalist/worker class dichotomy, resulting in a classless economy based upon unalienated possession through use.


 No.129977

>>129973

Pls post it


 No.131951

What is accelerationism, not in the sense of "let us vote for the worst candidates so that it will cause revolt", but rather in the sense of Nick Land, #CaveTwitter, n1x, etc…? By the way are there ACC folks browsing this board?


 No.132923

What are the best metrics for the well-being/whatever of the economy? What problems are there with the standard gdp per capita, gdp growth rate and unemployment rate?


 No.132925

>>131951

It's just thinking the fetishism of commodities is actually a good thing.


 No.133066

File: ec1e5ab91ad8069⋯.png (105.65 KB, 1050x695, 210:139, ec1e5ab91ad8.png)

Why do people hate trotskists so much?


 No.133067

>>133066

They have a weird habit of being wreckers (i.e religiously anti-ML) and turning into neocons or informants.


 No.133109

>>133066

In part it's the massive sperging of MLs inherited from the times of Stalin who really liked to emphasize the evilness of those Trotskyite spies, wreckers, fascists, saboteurs, agents of imperialism, traitors etc etc.

Of course, there are plenty reasons to shit on trots from other perspectives. Trotsky had produced some pretty bad takes, like transitional programme, "critical support", "bureaucratic collectivism" or entryism, but his confused followers turned Trotskyism into an even bigger joke, creating more hot takes and either a) making parties built on activism, idpol, socdemism and in general fucking anything which would get them more followers b) becoming cultish spergs like Spartacists who defended NAMBLA and ISIS or c) both because lol why not.

>>133067

>religiously anti-ML

Plenty of trot parties peddle that "critical support for degenerate workers' states" meme.


 No.133143

>>132923

Depends entirely on what "the well-being/whatever of the economy" is. Defining this to begin with is the trickiest part, because it's not just a question of "what does it mean for the economy to be doing well?" but also a question of scope. How healthy does the economy look for a given month? quarter? year? 5 years? decade? century? etc. The economy might be kicking ass right now if we're in a bubble but if you look a bit farther in the future it's bad because the bubble will pop. Look farther still and it will normalize again, and since boom/bust is normal for capitalism there's nothing particularly good or bad about a given cycle. In geographical scope this is also hard to define. A given city may have a shitty economy within a great national economy within a shitty global economy.

At the end of the day, probably the most important things are: capitalism is inherently unsustainable, so how close are we to the final collapse. Best way to see that is the rate of profit and how fast it's falling overall.


 No.134808

File: 914e18bb9798bf9⋯.jpg (811.56 KB, 864x1400, 108:175, Bonaparte.jpg)

>>134798

Not since 1804.


 No.134818

>>134798

Not since labor movement arose and aristocratic/royalist elements started losing power, effectively pushing the libs into the center.


 No.135064

File: f2d812be777e174⋯.png (12.37 MB, 3133x2480, 3133:2480, ClipboardImage.png)

Why do certain people on the left have a problem with so-called "liberal thinking/midsets" in the context of established enlightenment ideas?

I was having a debate with a Trot about civil rights and he claimed by argument was "liberal thinking". Is defending enlightenment ideas such as freedom of speech, civil right/liberties and other already established systems of the current order really so antithetical to socialism? Do we really have to force ourselves to start completely anew when socialism is achieved, doing away with already agreed upon liberal ideas and thoughts?

There are a lot of shit liberal/enlightenment concepts, sure, but it has always irked me that some socialists believe that anything that isn't associated with socialist/Marxist thought is somehow inherently bourgeois.


 No.135065

Who should we (critically)support in the meme war between the O9A/TOB and the Current 218 Anticosmic Satanists/QAYINITES?


 No.135069

>>135064

Rights are the empty promises made by the fox to the hens. They do not protect anyone from anything. Liberals will tell you that you must fight for your rights, but after you have been granted them they never fight for you in return.

The right to do a thing is nothing. It is the ability to do that thing that really matters. If you have the right to do a thing but not the ability then you cannot do that thing regardless of that right. If you possess the ability but not the right then you can do that thing regardless, just as bougeois individuals regularly do.

Consider that the ruling class will grant rights even as it takes away people's abilities. It will give you the "right to work" while allowing its constituent members to deny work to you. It will give you the right to expression while monopolizing every media by which people express themselves. It will trade the imaginary for the real at every opportunity. You lose when you make that trade.


 No.135086

>>135069

>It is the ability to do that thing that really matters

But what does that mean in the context of the right to a fair trial or the right of freedom of expression? These things are only guaranteed by laws which in turn are founded on rights. Have in mind that I am talking in the context that socialism has hypothetically been achieved, because I presume we are not all socdems here so discussing the value of enlightenment ideas under capitalism is pointless.

Perhaps I was not clear enough in my original post so I will further clarify by question; why do away with enlightenment ideas after achieving socialism? Why the need to disregard all ideas that do not originate from Marx?


 No.135088

>>135064

Ideally rights would be unnecessary. In a society where you don't have domination by a ruling class, there's nobody for the rights to protect you from. In our present context, it should be obvious that it's worthwhile to preserve whatever defense/weapons we have in class struggle.

People who sign away free speech so that a corporation can control who uses the public square (which privately-owned social media de fact is today)? Those are the actual libs, and fascist enablers.

>>135069

Much of society today exists in a virtual form, whether computerized or not. Bureaucracy means that what you are allowed to do on paper is actually relevant. It's not the only thing and it's not the most important thing, but it is relevant.


 No.135112

>>135064

>Is defending enlightenment ideas such as freedom of speech, civil right/liberties and other already established systems of the current order really so antithetical to socialism?

It's just self-defeating concept that gets compromise as soon as you arrive at some notion you're very opinionated on. Just look at this faggot Popper

>Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

We proclaim freedom of speech, tolerance of opinions and liberty to be eternal values common to all men! But only provided opposing concepts are utterly impotent("keep them in check by public opinion") and if they're actually strong enough to threaten status quo, then "we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force".

So if we were to turn that concept into a person, then it'd be equal to being able to shit-talk a currently reigning dictator as long as you don't make any actual attempts to remove him from power. How benevolent!


 No.135178

>>135086

>These things are only guaranteed by laws which in turn are founded on rights.

They are only guaranteed by laws in theory not in practice. Anyone who has ever experienced a lawsuit with a public defender for knows what that guarantee is worth. Anyone who has ever had cause to sue a corporation also knows full well how bullshit that promise is. As for free speech, it doesn't even exist in theory let alone practice.


 No.135236

How do leftists analyze multi-level marketing (the other MLM)?


 No.135240

>>135236

Marketing is paid out of capital and thus productive labor. Now, what it produces will not be necessary in a non-market economy and should be eliminated.


 No.135246

>>135088

>Much of society today exists in a virtual form

Ew, Baudrillard. I hate that he falls for the tired critical theory trope that "society" is everything that everybody does and not merely an organization of productive activity.

>Bureaucracy means that what you are allowed to do on paper is actually relevant.

No, bureaucracy does not enforce anything more than the public order. Its promises are just that, not any real guarantee of action. The law bends to those with means, and its enforcers do not need to follow its dictates with those who do not have means.


 No.135317

Why does /leftypol/ see anyone exposing secret societies as a /pol/ or right-wing thing, when there are left-wing and non-right-wing conspiracy theorists/ people who study the mystery religions out there as well.


 No.135318

>>135317

>the mystery religions

Just say it out loud like a man


 No.135630

>>135246

>Ew, Baudrillard.

No…?

>I hate that he falls for the tired critical theory trope that "society" is everything that everybody does and not merely an organization of productive activity.

A great deal of productive activity is organized online/virtually. I'm not talking about just social media.

>The law bends to those with means, and its enforcers do not need to follow its dictates with those who do not have means.

And in a virtual system where people interact through computer systems and the like, the people with means includes the people who control how that system works.


 No.135633

>>135623

Yes.


 No.135695

>>135633

t. moralfaggot

the correct answer is no


 No.135698

>>135695

>'correct answers' in 'ethics'

Spooked af


 No.135728

>>135630

>A great deal of productive activity is organized online/virtually.

Okay, when you say "virtual" you are talking about actual computers, not a shared false reality in which people interact. To the point, no, no productive activity is done online. It is done at desks with computers on them. I am sure that you already recognize the difference, but it is important to bear in mind the distinction. There is no virtual society, just a society where people utilize tools to socialize.

>And in a virtual system where people interact through computer systems and the like, the people with means includes the people who control how that system works.

There is nothing new about that. Owners have dictated how people may interact since the ruling families of the Italian city-states began dividing forums into small segments in order to prevent the until-then ubiquitous large-scale gatherings. People greatly overestimate the systemic changes wrought by the internet. Apart from its function as a medium for purchases, it is more an opiate than anything else.


 No.135731

>>135728

>Okay, when you say "virtual" you are talking about actual computers, not a shared false reality in which people interact.

Both of those. Computers are just one way. Having an obtuse management structure is another. The entire point of managers is to create a false reality that obscures the relations between workers and owners.

>There is nothing new about that.

No shit. Computers just make it more obvious and easier to point out how false consciousness is created. Religion has played a similar role (but without the efficiency of electronic communication of course).


 No.135737

>>135731

I would say that the primary purpose of management is to do all the things that ideological "capitalists" believe that owners do–be functioning capitalists. Why should owners do any of the actual work? Leave that to the help. Another function of management is to perform complicated tasks which the owners themselves are personally incapable of doing. Some rich bitch on the board of directors has no idea how to keep proles on-task, nor does he know anything about allocating resources. All he knows to do is fire people when that all doesn't get done properly.

As for false realities, you imagine them to be more important than they actually are. They do not keep people working jobs they hate to buy shit they don't need. Necessity does that. Not only that, but they are not as wholely created by the ruling class as many of us seem to think. People are perfectly capable of constructing that silly bullshit on their own, and they often find diversion in doing just that.


 No.135805

>>72458

ayo wasnt there a zero books video on feuerbach? Am i confusing channels?


 No.135913

>>135876

>you guys side with liberal movements, like lgbt, black consciousness, feminism, ect, despite knowing it's compromised

We do? I guess if someone feels like being volunteering in an lgbt center or something, then all the power to him, but in general I don't care since it's not an issue directly pertaining to class action(a rather common sentiment on /leftpol/). You might've gotten a different experience on /leftypol/ though, I haven't been there since BO turned it into a trashcan so the opinions there might've changed.

>>135902

Debunk what, an unsubstantiated claim that a liberal prime minister was actually a secret cultist of Marx and Lenin and so is his "dude weed lmao" son? It's literally in the same tier as "Drompfle is a fayshist"


 No.135923

>>135876

>you guys side with liberal movements, like lgbt, black consciousness, feminism, ect

Liar.


 No.135977

>>135737

>I would say that the primary purpose of management is to do all the things that ideological "capitalists" believe that owners do–be functioning capitalists. Why should owners do any of the actual work?

In that capacity, they are laborers. If doing that work is the primary purpose, there's no need to make the managers a separate class within the organization. You could just have some of the workers in administrative roles and promote people to those positions from grunt work instead of hiring from an entirely different pool. The job of management as an authority is to provide insulation between labor and capital and to ensure the interests of capital in the company's administration. If you merely promoted a worker to management, they would not have capital's interests. When given orders from capital to act in capital's interests, they would see the conflict directly (and if there was mobility between managers and workers, or if worker-managers fraternized with workers, these ideas would proliferate through the working class). To keep the interests of capital obscured, managers are hired from the dumbest fucking people on the face of the earth (MBAs), who will believe the capitalist ideology fully and won't be able to properly parse the conflict between labor and capital (aside from labor being lazy). Or they'll hire cynical assholes who know they personally can get a better deal by being class traitors. Those guys end up in upper management.

>Another function of management is to perform complicated tasks which the owners themselves are personally incapable of doing.

The "complexity" of management is vastly overstated. For the average worker it's pretty trivial, but to the smooth brains in management it seems complex.

>Some rich bitch on the board of directors has no idea how to keep proles on-task, nor does he know anything about allocating resources. All he knows to do is fire people when that all doesn't get done properly.

It depends, but this is an ancillary reason. For someone with access to those kinds of resources, it's just never worth doing it themselves. If they spent their time looking for things to invest in, they can get a much bigger return. If they spent their time just enjoying their wealth, they'd have a much better time.

>As for false realities, you imagine them to be more important than they actually are.

That's pretty fucking vague. I imagine that they function as the social medium through which the minutiae of production is regulated. Obviously, the nature of the ideology is going to be determined by the material conditions of production, but being determined by something else doesn't remove the function. If disturbing the material conditions isn't an option, you can shake things up by disturbing the false reality.

A similar sort of dynamic happens with chromosomes, hormones, and sex differentiation. Hormone levels are determined by chromosomes, and hormones determine sex differentiation. If you disrupt the hormones present in the womb, you could alter the sex differentiation in spite of the chromosomes.

>They do not keep people working jobs they hate to buy shit they don't need. Necessity does that.

But it's only necessary to work so hard because the workers aren't in control. Having managers in the way keeps the workings of control out of the workers' view. Having morons do it helps make it seem complicated, because morons will be challenged by the work (and fuck up), and the workers will see that.

>Not only that, but they are not as wholely created by the ruling class as many of us seem to think. People are perfectly capable of constructing that silly bullshit on their own, and they often find diversion in doing just that.

The ruling class isn't the subject of capitalism. There is no subject. This kind of structure appears because it ameliorates the business's internal class conflict. The businesses that imitate the structure are more likely to maintain that tension rather than being destroyed by it.


 No.135994

>>135977

>If doing that work is the primary purpose, there's no need to make the managers a separate class within the organization.

At many levels they are not seperate. Most managers are indeed proles with no particular investment in capital. "Management" is a very broad category that does not conform to class distinctions. It is really only upper management that shares any interests with the owners. Lower management is just proles with somewhat better pay.

>You could just have some of the workers in administrative roles and promote people to those positions from grunt work instead of hiring from an entirely different pool.

That is exactly how lower management tends to hire. Middle management and upper management are taken from different pools, and upper management is often actual porkies.

>The job of management as an authority is to provide insulation between labor and capital and to ensure the interests of capital in the company's administration.

Middle management does that just by not being visible. As far as most rank-and-file employees are concerned, middle managers are just names on a plate that lower managers tend to say with a note of disgust.

>To keep the interests of capital obscured, managers are hired from the dumbest fucking people on the face of the earth (MBAs), who will believe the capitalist ideology fully and won't be able to properly parse the conflict between labor and capital (aside from labor being lazy). Or they'll hire cynical assholes who know they personally can get a better deal by being class traitors.

lel That's middle management alright.

>Those guys end up in upper management.

Oh, no they don't. Upper management is reserved for shareholders' nephews, sons-in-law, and other silver spoon-fed porky twits.

>I imagine that they function as the social medium through which the minutiae of production is regulated.

Why? Production itself is done under the blatant threat that the workers will behave as expected or be forced to quit the premises. They do not stay there out of a deeply-held belief in the moral righteousness of the institution. Fantastic notions of capitalist meritocracy and company culture make proles feel better about what they do, but that happy horseshit only extends as far as the next paycheck. Don't habeeb it? Watch how quickly the "false reality" vanishes when a paycheck is late.

>If disturbing the material conditions isn't an option, you can shake things up by disturbing the false reality.

No, you really can't. A worker/low-level manager who does not toe the line gets fired and replaced awfully quickly. Then, even if you do manage to show some people the man behind the curtain they will keep coming to work and performing the job as instructed simply because they have to. Shit, look at you and me. We both know what the bullshit is all about, and yet we (I assume) keep going to work and performing the tasks that we are given as instructed, because we have bills.

>A similar sort of dynamic happens with chromosomes, hormones, and sex differentiation.

Yeah, but we are not talking about chemistry. False realities are not scientific subjects.

>Having managers in the way keeps the workings of control out of the workers' view.

Only on an operational level and only within an individual's particular workplace. Capital is still visible in various other facets of a person's life from mortgages to student loans to utility bills.

>The ruling class isn't the subject of capitalism. There is no subject. This kind of structure appears because it ameliorates the business's internal class conflict. The businesses that imitate the structure are more likely to maintain that tension rather than being destroyed by it.

That does not respond to my point that false notions of how capitalism work are not produced wholely–or even primarily–in the workplace.


 No.136009

>>135876

Only /leftypol/ sides with Jewish-backed movements to destroy Western society and inundate the west in shitskins. /leftpol/ takes a racial Nazbol stance against these machinations


 No.136017

File: f13fa31326a4430⋯.jpg (144.84 KB, 752x1063, 752:1063, The boss needs you, you do….jpg)

>>135994

Main points

>That does not respond to my point that false notions of how capitalism work are not produced wholely–or even primarily–in the workplace.

False consciousness doesn't have to be produced in the workplace. The point is that maintaining it in the structure of the workplace is a successful strategy. The business maintaining the ideology completes the cycle. It's a symbiotic relationship.

>"Management" is a very broad category that does not conform to class distinctions.

I was talking about middle management except where I mentioned upper management. Lower management is just "team captain" shit where you have slightly more money and responsibilities. Yes, there is a lot of variation in management structure. That's why this is all generalizations about what kind of approach works.

>That is exactly how lower management tends to hire. Middle management and upper management are taken from different pools, and upper management is often actual porkies.

The distinction here was how I was trying to establish the distinction I was making instead of having to spoonfeed every term I was using.

>No, you really can't. A worker/low-level manager who does not toe the line gets fired and replaced awfully quickly.

I'm not talking about managers as a vehicle for class struggle. There are two separate points here.

<Management contributes to false consciousness by obscuring the conflict between capital and labor

<You can agitate the workers by disrupting false consciousness

I'm not suggesting that you can revolutionize the management. That would be fucking stupid. I'm defending my point that false consciousness or false reality is relevant to class struggle, which is why it behooves us to look at the factors that contribute to it, like organizational structure obscuring the production relations.

>We both know what the bullshit is all about, and yet we (I assume) keep going to work and performing the tasks that we are given as instructed, because we have bills.

Alone that's the only option. If you organize your workplace you can put pressure on it. Even something as simple as a slowdown can have an effect.

>Why? Production itself is done under the blatant threat that the workers will behave as expected or be forced to quit the premises. They do not stay there out of a deeply-held belief in the moral righteousness of the institution.

Why is that they don't fight the institution because they see it as huge and inscrutable. Complex org charts and management bureaucracy is the primary reason for that illusion. They think all of that stuff is what makes the system run. It doesn't occur to most workers that not only could you get rid of management, but that it would solve most of their problems. The central false belief here is that they need the boss in order for the job to be available, but the boss doesn't need the workers (which is why they're supposedly expendable if they fuck up). That's the usual stumbling block when trying to talk to people about socialism - "but if there's no capitalists, where do the jobs come from?" The answer is of course that a job comes from a need to be fulfilled, the tools to fulfill it, and the person to do it. But if you think jobs are created by a company, you at best imagine starting a business (which everyone knows is most likely to fail) and at worst imagine waiting for someone else to start a business to get a job there. The false consciousness is that the hierarchy that exists is the best possible option or the only viable one.

Minor points

>Upper management is reserved for shareholders' nephews, sons-in-law, and other silver spoon-fed porky twits.

It depends. Obviously those guys get there first. While nobody rises from lower management to middle management, you sometimes get middle managers rising into upper management, usually when a middle manager mistakenly hires a savvy person. The point is these are the only types who make that transition.

>Only on an operational level and only within an individual's particular workplace.

Sure, but typical corporate workplaces conform to that model.

>Capital is still visible in various other facets of a person's life from mortgages to student loans to utility bills.

Having debt/rent is a different relation to capital than having your labor exploited. You're in a consumer role there. A mortgage exploits your need for shelter, but not your labor. It's a different dynamic that should be understood differently. Understanding one doesn't imply understanding the other.

Other bullshit

>Yeah, but we are not talking about chemistry. False realities are not scientific subjects.

The two dynamics are alike in a particular way, but not necessarily in others. That's what a comparison is.


 No.136019

>>136017

>The answer is of course that a job comes from a need to be fulfilled, the tools to fulfill it, and the person to do it.

You forgot immediate synchronized telepathic interaction to make it clear and irrefusable to everyone what they need to do, for whom, where and in what manner.


 No.136167

I still confused on why the Christchurch shooting happened who or what is at fault and what systematic problem(s) caused it?


 No.136193

>>136167

One of the worst things about random shooters is that they insist on being interpreted, on people trying to discern some meaning from their actions that transcends their shitty life.

Don't bother. It just feeds the cycle of fascination that leads other people to see a mass shooting as a viable option to make their mark on the world.


 No.136194

File: 0b9c8eb8f97da02⋯.pdf (620.57 KB, Franco ’Bifo’ Berardi - He….pdf)

>>136167

Neoliberalism. Read Bifo.


 No.136212

>>136167

I'm sure it is multifaceted but the main fault is that fascism is a fundamentally violent ideology.


 No.136244

>>136167

>when you’re so bamboozled with Jewish thought that you can’t understand why people don’t want foreigners moving in with an entirely different culture and race

It’s low intensity ethnic warfare between whites and non-whites. This is the natural result of multiculturalism


 No.136656

File: e789cbefe37b0db⋯.jpg (146.17 KB, 1283x1923, 1283:1923, e789cbefe37b0dbc456352606e….jpg)

Is supporters of capitalism believing it to be "individualistic" a result of the fetishism of commodities, i.e., perceiving the market as a place where commodities meet and not as the complex interdependency of their producers?


 No.136719

>>136656

No, I would say that it is a result of "capitalists" taking mystifications at face-value, because they never do any actual analysis.


 No.138101

>>138100

>As leftists do you agree or disagree with sony's sex ban?

Neither? Isn't there more porn out there than could possibly watched in a lifetime? How does one porn website going down effect your fapping hobby?


 No.138105

>>136656

>Is supporters of capitalism believing it to be "individualistic" a result of the fetishism of commodities, i.e., perceiving the market as a place where commodities meet and not as the complex interdependency of their producers?

I think it's more to justify the "personal responsibility" meme. If you're starving to death, that's your personal problem. The system never fails, only the individual.


 No.138120

>>136656

It's because tankies don't want to let them do anything, so capitalism (which they consider the opposite of tankism) is freer.


 No.138122

>>81004

>Rape

Spooked


 No.138123

>>136212

What's wrong with being violent?


 No.138124

>>136193

As opposed to your life? The one of knowledge and pleasure?


 No.140302

File: 7ba285b34f9a290⋯.jpg (657.82 KB, 2560x1707, 2560:1707, cccp-4.jpg)

People always talk about how Peterson and his ilk target young white men. Is there similar for women? Or are we just to assume that women don't care about politics? I want to listen to politics for women.


 No.140303

>>140302

Idpol is politics for women


 No.140337

>>140303

Idpol is for angry young men.


 No.140389

>>140302

>Is there similar for women

Tumblr feminism


 No.140390

>>140302

Stop posting trannies


 No.140439

>>140302

As someone said, there's idpol (especially the LISTEN TO WOMEN) variety, but that's more a thing with "lefty" types, not a parallel to Peterson. The status-quo parallel is more like becoming an instagram influencer and shilling for fashion/cosmetic companies.


 No.140441

>>140439

What about a radical leftist parallel?


 No.140442

>>140441

A radical leftist parallel to a status-quo warrior? Or do you mean generally some kind of "thought leader" like Peterson but for the left and targeting young women? Because I don't know of any but would like to.


 No.140572

File: 164830682e16df3⋯.jpg (146.58 KB, 1200x1800, 2:3, 93ba395a6b2532dc08eee7e2d4….jpg)

What is "radlib" supposed to mean? There's nothing radical about the people it is used for, not from a materialist point of view anyway. Maybe some retarded reactionary would believe that not being able to say nigger is the end of capitalist society or whatever the fuck they believe the existent is but for anyone with a functioning brain, radical liberalism will be an oxymoron. Please make up a more accurate slur.


 No.140575

>>140572

I believe it's sarcasm but I personally use "red lib" instead to mock liberals larping as revolutionaries.


 No.140584

>>140572

It's sarcastic. Being a radical and a liberal is an oxymoron, but these people (Chapofags, breadtube, etc) are actually trying to fuse surface-level socialist ideology with liberal ideology they got from their upbringing/socialization. It's purely mocking in the same way that "social justice warrior" mocks wokescolds.


 No.140640

>>140584

Lots of buzzwords, little substance. Room temp i Q


 No.140663

>>140572

I think it's more of a pun with the term "rabid" to imply people grouped under that term are hysterical.


 No.141059

File: bfd2e44709e0181⋯.jpg (1.87 MB, 2434x1761, 2434:1761, Pita_giros.JPG)

Is this the food of the proletariat?


 No.141066

File: d74664fbd416fd5⋯.jpg (32.81 KB, 600x400, 3:2, kropotkin.JPG)

I've been rereading the Conquest of Bread and my question is who exactly is Kropotkin referring to those who are practical. Specifically when he talking about when practical people worry about how the government should be set up and who should be in charge, while us utopians worry about how to make sure everyone eats.


 No.141113

>>140640

t. Seething chapotista


 No.141523

File: 2b1e0dd836901fb⋯.jpg (283.42 KB, 568x672, 71:84, f867dfb4381eb458e3269342a1….jpg)

>>141500

It's from Stirner and it means being blinded by some abstract ideal (like God, Race, Nationality, Family, Communism, etc.).


 No.141543

>>141523

Kind of but not exactly.

>>141500

A spook is an immaterial concept that, for whatever reason, becomes fixed in your head as some unchanging thing that is more important than you yourself are. Say, for example, you think that the law is more important than any one person such as yourself. In that case, the law is a spook, and as a spooked individual you would then act in service of that spook to the point that doing so disadvantages you. An important distinction to make is that a person may recognize that it is in their personal interest to live in a society with rules. This may lead the spook-free individual to support the establishment and maintainance of such rules, but he would not follow those rules to the point that they are a detriment to himself. The concept of "law" is to him a tool rather than a commandment.


 No.141547

>>141500

>>141543

>>141523

Isn't this basically what a spook is? It's certainly related or similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore


 No.141548

>>141547

The difference there is that spooks are functions of an individual, not of a group. Although many people may be spooked by the law, their belief in it is not collective. This can be observed in how individuals who are spooked by nominally the same concept disagree wildly as to what actions must be performed in its service.


 No.141552

>>141548

Aren't spooks usually sourced to some group or ideology though? A "collective belief" is going to get inconsistent following, and so will an actual flesh and blood person. Whether what you believe in is real (materially), you are still acting according to your belief which is always subjective no matter what it's based on.


 No.141557

>>141552

>Aren't spooks usually sourced to some group or ideology though?

Not necessarily. While spooks often relate to groups of people (either real or imagined) the spook is the concept of the group itself, eg. the "Black Man."

>A "collective belief" is going to get inconsistent following, and so will an actual flesh and blood person.

The reason for that inconsistency is that each individual conceptualizes their spook themselves. The individual may receive input regarding the spook from others, but that input is merely raw material that is then utilized by the individual to create his construct. Likewise, what the follower of an individual serves is not the individual himself but rather what the follower perceives the individual to stand for, and therein lies the spook. For example, the spooked individual reasons that Napoleon should be followed, because Napoleon stands for liberty, which is a thing greater than himself.


 No.141558

>>141557

This makes sense but I don't see how this draws a functional distinction between the concepts. A spook or egregore to me seems like a kind of parasitic/viral entity or even life form that exists and reproduces through memes instead of genes. Any idea has to be individualized necessarily because it can only exist subjectively in the mind of the individual. Similarly, you can identify the flu virus as an entity even though it's materially a huge number of individual viruses that are constantly mutating and reproducing every time they use a body to reproduce.


 No.141569

>>141558

Contrary to what /pol/ may believe, genes and memes do not function the same way. An individual virus is functionally identical to every other such virus. Its reproduction only forms more identical bodies, but a concept is not functionally identical from one person to the next. It does not create like concepts when it is shared with another individual. Instead it must be recreated deliberately by every individual who accepts it.


 No.141589

>>141557

>the spook is the concept of the group itself, eg. the "Black Man."

Spooks can be completely abstract with no underlying group or object to attach itself. Concepts like "Justice" or "Love" or arguably "Nations", although you could probably argue that doesn't count since nations are made up of land.


 No.141595

>>141569

>An individual virus is functionally identical to every other such virus.

Viruses mutate all the time. Some more than others. That's why there's a new flu shot every year.

>a concept is not functionally identical from one person to the next. It does not create like concepts when it is shared with another individual. Instead it must be recreated deliberately by every individual who accepts it.

It depends. Some people are more inquisitive than others, some people accept new ideas with little critical evaluation. If you encourage people to think more critically it's like boosting someone's immune system to fight off a virus. Some ideas can replicate effectively without anyone believing (Zizek talks about this). Ideas mutate even more rapidly, but the ones that can mutate while retaining a viral quality (the tendency to get the "host" to spread them) will be highly successful. Propaganda is just more openly used than biological warfare, so people are deliberately engineering memes much more than they are with germs. That's both marketing and political rhetoric in a nutshell.


 No.141597

>>141589

Nations are not made of land. They are merely ascribed a particular jurisdiction. The nation itself is entirely abstract, a legal fiction.


 No.141673

Any good documentaries, books or articles which goes "behind the scene" and explore how economic power and political power are linked? Something to combat the naive right wing vision that the evil state bureaucrats hate entrepreneurs and are doing everything they can to regulate capitalism.


 No.141675

>>140572

>What is "radlib" supposed to mean?

Taken literally, lolberts. In actual use it either means idpol activist (not affiliated with any socialist group) or anyone to the left of social democracy depending on who is saying it. In either case it is indicative of not understanding what liberalism actually is, which can also be evidenced by the same people substituting "neoliberalism" for "capitalism".


 No.141688

Let's say I've got power in the Australian government. Let's say I invoke the "Awlaki precedent" to push for ASIO / ASIS/ hypothetical Australian NKVD to assassinate kill Brenton Tarrant in New Zealand's prison. Let's say he actually gets killed as a result of my actions.

Thoughts?


 No.141689

>>141688

I think fighting fascists by using the same tactics is dumb. 'Might as well be a fascist if non-fascists do the same shit' is how it looks.


 No.141692

>>141689

In my view fascism is ideological (idealism rather than materialism) rather than concerned about state power.

There should be nothing wrong about mobs of fascist rioters being violently dispersed by the socialist state.


 No.141693

>>141691

No shit retard, Stirner was an anarchist and the spook comes from his joke that these people are possessed by some phantasm, but it is a metaphor, not some occultist bullshit. Nothing is more to me than myself.


 No.141694

>>141688

You would make a martyr out of him and give them ammo for their paranoid conspiracy theories about Jews and communist secretly controlling the whole world.


 No.141702

>>141697

> Under the rule of a cruel master my body is not “free” from torments and lashes; but it is my bones that groan under the torture, my fibers that twitch under the blows, and I groan because my body groans. That I sigh and shiver proves that I have not yet lost myself, that I am still my own. My leg is not “free” from the master’s stick, but it is my leg and is inseparable. Let him tear it off me and see if he still has my leg! He holds nothing in his hand but—the corpse of my leg, which is as little my leg as a dead dog is still a dog. A dog has a beating heart, a so-called dead dog has none and so is no longer a dog.


 No.141709

>>141692

Try de-spooking, fash


 No.141712

>>141693

Calling it a ghost is a metaphor but people are literally "possessed" by ideology in that it gets inside them and makes them do stupid shit.


 No.141720

File: a6dca56307c8897⋯.jpg (28.45 KB, 360x460, 18:23, 41ekmqooh6L._AC._SR360,460.jpg)

So I have pic related left over from college as well as standalone copies Wage Labor and Capital/Critique of the Gotha Program. What other books should I get in order to have a good starting "library" of Marx's writings?


 No.141731

>>141720

Capital.


 No.141745


 No.141747

>>141731

Very true. Reading all that other stuff really does not help with Capital that much. If Capital is your goal, then get right to it, I say.


 No.141796

File: b12197acabbd7be⋯.pdf (880.08 KB, Stirner - The Ego and His ….pdf)

File: 330018d60bd3b56⋯.pdf (6.76 MB, Stirner - The Unique and I….pdf)

>>141706

Two translations to English exist. Unique is the newer one.


 No.141837

>>141720

For critique of economy just go with Capital right of the bat, be sure to read check out the appendix on value-form too in case of any problems in the beginning. Otherwise don't use any supplementary stuff by third parties, his stuff really isn't black magic and it's best not to let preconceived notions of some academic monkeys get to you.


 No.144814

Why do people think voting legitimizes democracy? Do they think that if nobody voted the state would just disband itself? How many people need to vote anyway for it be legitimate?


 No.144904

>>144814

Spooks. It doesn't hurt to vote. It's just not usually worth it at all. The idea is that if you do vote it supports the idea in your head that voting matters when it doesn't.


 No.145348

Why do leftist youtubers always talk about pop culture?


 No.145353

>>145348

As bait to make normies engaged.


 No.145359

>>145348

Because they're retarded talking heads, stop watching them and get a better hobby.


 No.145416

>>145359

I don't watch them because they talk about pop culture which I do not follow


 No.145442

>>84037

There was even a guy who started a league of militant atheists in the USSR. not that it would face any criticism or resistance back then.

Anyways is there any wager I'd bet any of you couldn't make it through a book by plinio correa de oliveira, nicolas gomez davila or anthony ludovici without getting immensely triggered?


 No.145444

>>145416

I rarely talk about pop culture


 No.145454

>>145348

Stop watching braindead retards and watch someone actually interesting. It’s much more interesting to watch some dude sit in front of a webcam and ramble in a badly lit room than watch some urbanite scum pretend he knows everything in a smug scripted voice


 No.146469

>>145348

>"leftist" youtubers

you mean BreadTardtube? they are just radlibs


 No.146929

I'm trying to see if either pol or leftpol is correct regarding the elite.

What is /leftpol/'s answer to why some of the riches men in the world financially backing communist revolutions? One example is Jacob Schiff (who later rejected them)

>“Why are the super-rich for socialism? Don't they have the most to lose? I take a look at my bank account and compare it with Nelson Rockefeller's and it seems funny that I'm against socialism and he's out promoting it." Or is it funny? In reality, there is a vast difference between what the promoters define as socialism and what it is in actual practice. The idea that socialism is a share-the-wealth program is strictly a confidence game to get the people to surrender their freedom to an all-powerful collectivist government. While the Insiders tell us we are building a paradise on earth, we are actually constructing a jail for ourselves.” Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy


 No.147352

Why do so many leftist parties/flags use the star?


 No.147355

>>146929

Gary Allen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Allen

>Gary Allen (August 2, 1936 – November 29, 1986) was an American conservative writer and conspiracy theorist. Allen promoted the theory that international banking and politics control domestic decisions, taking them out of elected officials' hands.[1]

>As a student, Allen majored in history at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California,[2] and studied as well at California State University in Long Beach.[3] He was a prominent member of Robert W. Welch, Jr.'s John Birch Society, of which he was a spokesman. He contributed to magazines such as Conservative Digest[4] and American Opinion magazine since 1964.[5] He also was the speech writer for George Wallace, the former governor of Alabama, during his segregationist third-party presidential bid in the 1968 U.S. presidential election against Richard M. Nixon and Hubert H. Humphrey. He was an advisor to the conservative Texas millionaire Nelson Bunker Hunt.[4]

>In 1971, Allen wrote with Larry Abraham a book titled None Dare Call It Conspiracy (prefaced by U.S. Representative John G. Schmitz of California's 35th congressional district and the nominee of the American Independent Party in the 1972 U.S. presidential election). It sold more than four million copies[6] during the 1972 presidential campaign opposing Nixon and U.S. Senator George S. McGovern.[7]

>In this book, Allen and Abraham assert that the modern political and economic systems in most developed nations are the result of a sweeping conspiracy by the Establishment's power elite, for which he also uses the term Insiders. According to the authors, these Insiders use elements of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto to forward their socialist/communist agenda:

>Establish an income tax system as a means of extorting money from the common man;

>Establish a central bank, deceptively named so that people will think it is part of the government;

>Have this bank be the holder of the national debt;

>Run the national debt, and the interest thereon, sky high through wars (or any sort of deficit spending), starting with World War I.[8]

>He quotes the Council on Foreign Relations as having stated, in its study no. 7 : ”The U.S. must strive to: A. BUILD A NEW INTERNATIONAL ORDER.” (Capitals in the original).[9]

>Allen wrote other books about the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, asserting that the term "New World Order" was used by a secretive elite dedicated to the destruction of all national sovereignties.[10]

>Allen's last book, Say "No!" to the new world order, was published posthumously in January 1987.

>Investigative reporter Chip Berlet argues that Allen's work provides an example of a synthesis of right-wing populism and conspiracism, a blend of ideas known as producerism.[11]


 No.147431

Is the left against racism? if so how? Aren't the races different and therefor better or worse?


 No.147438

>>147431

>Aren't the races different and therefor better or worse?

You're trying to make a leap from factual statements to ethical statements. Not gonna work.


 No.147453

>>147438

I'm not really equip to have this conversation, but shouldn't facts drive ethics? I don't understand how people can believe in racial equality, or is that a liberal belief and not a leftist one?


 No.147458

>>147453

>shouldn't facts drive ethics?

What does that even mean?

Anyway, you have to make an ethical argument as to what facts are relevant. You can't just state facts - extremely vague ones in your case, by the way - and assert that some ethics follow from them alone.


 No.147465

>>147458

>What does that even mean?

Shouldn't you find truth before finding morals that way, ethics will be found with truth?

How do you know that leftism is right, instead of rightism being right, or do you choose leftism because it works for you better?


 No.147468

>>147465

>Shouldn't you find truth before finding morals that way, ethics will be found with truth?

What?


 No.147469

>>147468

I must remember to proof read, that was embarrassing. I mean to say that shouldn't you search for truth before worrying about morals (without becoming a psychopath or something), since morals should work with truth?


 No.147489

>>147352

It’s a secret nod to the Star of David


 No.147492

>>147489

source?


 No.147495

>>147492

Communism is a Jewish movement and the use of the Star of David would be too overt, so the Jews use the pentagram instead. Six points of the Star of David symbolize the purity of the Jewish race, while the five pointed obviously denotes a movement not purely Jewish but dominated by Jewish overlords


 No.147502

>>147495

Isn't communism genuinely a Jewish movement? Why don't you care about that?


 No.147505

The five-pointed star represents the five inhabited continents. It's a geometric representation of "Workers of the world, unite!".


 No.147610

>>147502

>implying any of us are communists here

This is basically the shitposting division of /fascist/ with a few leftynigger hanger-ons


 No.147612

>>147469

>morals should work with truth

Again, I've no idea what this means.

You need to be exact, otherwise we run the risk of simply playing around with language.


 No.147732

File: b844972add8ffb8⋯.png (111.71 KB, 500x706, 250:353, wage-slavery-or-starvation….png)

I know we make fun of ancaps by pointing out that there's no such thing as volunteer work, because if you don't work you starve. But if you don't work under socialism wouldn't you still starve, thus making work nonvoluntary.


 No.147743

>>147732

Food production has reached post-scarcity. There's no legitimate reason not to have farms be publicly operated and to simply give people free food. Luxury food items are questionable, but our productive capacity can absolutely feed the world simply for the sake of doing so.


 No.147752

>>147732

"Wageslavery" rhetoric isn't so much about human contention with scarcity, but the naked injustice and needlessness of people robbing the sweat off the brow of other people, atop any actual scarcity.


 No.147754

>>147732

That's why socialism sucks and anything less than communism is unbearable.


 No.147907

File: f6bafe180d4b85c⋯.png (1.12 MB, 2160x1080, 2:1, Screenshot_20190713-214710.png)

Anyone have this cnt fai art they can link me or post in here


 No.147925

File: f2e3b2c8cfff123⋯.jpg (178.01 KB, 646x919, 646:919, ryszard-dabrowski-likvidat….jpg)


 No.147942

>>147925

Thanks fam




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / guarida / marxism / radfem / vichan / wmafsex ]