## what Marxism really is.....

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

I guess the smell of the piles of rotting bodies make that question seem a little academic.

Of course, once you get past the stench, there are still all sorts of reasons it is a stupid thing to wonder about, and takes so much for granted that one wonders if you don't get your economic and political theory from Barney the Dinosaur.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Pedro I Rengel wrote:I guess the smell of the piles of rotting bodies make that question seem a little academic.

Of course, once you get past the stench, there are still all sorts of reasons it is a stupid thing to wonder about, and takes so much for granted that one wonders if you don't get your economic and political theory from Barney the Dinosaur.

Pedro. Honestly. I didn’t say much about the compromise between capitalism and communism that I arrived at; however, for some reason, you busted in here like a complete asshole.

I have much bigger things on my mind than the squabbles of Homo sapiens ... I’m being kind to all of you.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Ec,

We on this side,
have danced this dance,

As you know, though, I like you personally. But when it comes to how you think my life should be governed, your shit better be ironclad. And it's not. It's not even thought through.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Ec,

We on this side,

have danced this dance,

As you know, though, I like you personally. But when it comes to how you think my life should be governed, your shit better be ironclad. And it's not. It's not even thought through.

Pedro. I am so far beyond what you can possibly comprehend right now.

My life story is about sending every possible being to heaven forever. Try that for one fucking minute and see what happens to you. I have a much greater spiritual constitution than you do. I’m being polite by offering this little species decent advice.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

My life makes your life look like a monocle-wearing capitalist scrooge's wet dream.

Spare me the sob stories. I save my tears for actual tragedies. Of which I am personally involved with many.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

That's one thing I have come to like about Marines. Their understanding about how fucked up life is outside the United States' sphere of influence is not academic.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Now excuse me while I light this big fucking cigar I have right here.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Pedro I Rengel wrote:My life makes your life look like a monocle-wearing capitalist scrooge's wet dream.

Spare me the sob stories. I save my tears for actual tragedies. Of which I am personally involved with many.

Pedro. Here’s the deal. Have you ever taken on the worst people, not just on this planet, but all of existence and try to send them to heaven forever?

Have you ever taken on a spirit like that before?

This is not a sob story. This is having the courage to go to a hell beyond anything you can possibly comprehend in your current state, and helping them.

You don’t even know what a non terrestrial hell is like, I’ve been to thousands of them.

Are you really going to lecture me right now?

Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

No Ec. I'm not going to lecture you. Because I have had psychotic breaks too.

But honestly. Psychotic or not. Intellectual rigour is possible. Try it. Do us all a favour.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Pedro I Rengel wrote:No Ec. I'm not going to lecture you. Because I have had psychotic breaks too.

But honestly. Psychotic or not. Intellectual rigour is possible. Try it. Do us all a favour.

Psychosis is just taking on a spirit. It’s healing that spirit (if you can pull it off, it’s giving that spirit rest) That’s all it is. Nothing more, nothing less. You new worlders don’t understand things like this.

Anyways, that’s besides the point.

Salary caps cause people to communicate better for huge projects. Better communication, better outcomes. If you need 1000 people to make a billion dollar investment, it increases the intelligence of the species.

Like I said, I’m being very polite to this species.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

What you're being is sloppy, and arrogant, and also filled with the arrogance to believe that you can get me to agree to a sloppy, arrogant idea of how my life should be governed.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Pedro I Rengel wrote:What you're being is sloppy, and arrogant, and also filled with the arrogance to believe that you can get me to agree to a sloppy, arrogant idea of how my life should be governed.

Your life is governed. What do you think this is Pedro?

Let me tell you:

We all live forever and we were never born. We get bored with forever. A being may spend trillions of years on an idea, and we just all say, “fuck it! Why not!”

That’s all this is Pedro. There is so much you don’t understand about existence Pedro. I only come for the big problems. My comments on this infinitesimal species are just me being polite.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Oh.

In that case, I assure you lord, there's no need. My lord can go mind the big things.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

promethean75 wrote:Imma tell y'all what's so humorous about this. All the marxophobia around here about the horrors of a marxist society - they take all your stuff and censor your speech and give you meals in the shape of green gelatinous blocks - all this is laughable nonsense so far removed from addressing the REAL problems Marxism would be faced with, that you almost abandon all hope when entering this thread... like dante when that nigga walked into the inferno.

Among the actual problems the system would be faced with would be how to determine the wage amounts for the various jobs. In a planned economy there is no competition between private employers. That mechanism would be entirely missing. Instead you'd have to work out some kind of calculus that counted how much time was invested by the state in educating that particular worker, how well he performed in comparison to others doing the same, and how popular and successful the service or product he is involved in producing, is worth to consumers. How popular it is.

These are the real problems. Nothing here about secret police or flouride in the water.

I mentioned this problem multiple times in this thread.
and i haven't read rosa's thing yet
about the socialist republic of walmart or whatever
but i can say with sufficient evidential endorsement
the free markets regulate themselves
into stable optimals
and an economic system that forbids free market
and compensates for its absence
by means of regulation and planning
can only succeed at being comprehensively incompetent
both hugely complicated and hugely flawed
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Ecmandu wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:I guess the smell of the piles of rotting bodies make that question seem a little academic.

Of course, once you get past the stench, there are still all sorts of reasons it is a stupid thing to wonder about, and takes so much for granted that one wonders if you don't get your economic and political theory from Barney the Dinosaur.

Pedro. Honestly. I didn’t say much about the compromise between capitalism and communism that I arrived at; however, for some reason, you busted in here like a complete asshole.

I have much bigger things on my mind than the squabbles of Homo sapiens ... I’m being kind to all of you.

Wait I just realized something. Ec, that message wasn't for you. It was for prom asking how you would decide each of a million people's wages artificially.

Fuck.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Wondering about how to artificially compensate labour for the people under the rule of a given state is a leftist passtime, direct ways, indirect ways, incentives, tariffs, actual written schedules. They all fail. And meanwhile the obvious actual answer is:

Why don't you let me handle my own affairs, you controlling totallitarian fucking teenager of a thinker? What, you got your ass kicked in high school and now you just dream of how to direct eveybody's lives? Get over it goddamnit. Get a job.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

I pledge $100 dollers (Canadian, unfortunately, sorry about that), sent via paypal, to get a hooker for anybody that is in the situation I just described and promises to leave us all be and live our lives. Pedro I Rengel ILP Legend Posts: 6961 Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm ### Re: what Marxism really is..... OK, I'm being a dick, but it's only because I know what I am going to say next is going to be completely disregarded: If you (commies, leftist thinkers, intellectuales of the humanitarian bent) spent any, but preferably all of your thinking power, ambition, dedication, focus, problem solving abilities and general intellectual curiosity to the problem of making your life as awesome as you can imagine it (if that means mainly looking out for your fellow brothers, I don't see why not, read about Norman Borlaug), which capitalism gives you tools for that have never been available for the individual in the entirety of human existence, this world would probably be considerably more awesome. Could be considerably more awesome. Of course, you would risk failure. But think, if that is the only thing keeping you... are your current preocupations really that dignified? Don't jump on me right away. You are an intellectual, give yourself at least the gift or the stoic challenge to let it sit in your mind for a few days. Pedro I Rengel ILP Legend Posts: 6961 Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm ### Re: what Marxism really is..... Pedro I Rengel wrote:I had another point to make, but like MagsJ threw me off balance. Howdy Mags. My offer to take up arms and lead a rebellion for you stands. Looks like you got back on track.. with making your point(s) and then some. Some, aren’t worth leading a rebellion against.. in thinking that everyone cares about and feels exactly the same feelings and in the same way about phenomena.. as they do, they will always be operating from a place of stupidity. Btw.. does anyone know what the title of Marx’s Manifesto is? ..just asking for a friend. The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ MagsJ The Londonist: a chic geek Posts: 20919 Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town ### Re: what Marxism really is..... The Communist Manifesto, originally the Manifesto of the Communist Party (German: Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei), is an 1848 political document by German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. You have been observed. obsrvr524 Philosopher Posts: 1054 Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am ### Re: what Marxism really is..... Whatever, I talk a lot. After a certain point of getting to know yourself, you just accept some things and move on. What you say about some people's feelings and those people's opinions on them, could open up an interesting philosophical debate of what constitutes an individual person, and to what extent feelings and thoughts are had by individual persons, but oddly ilovephilosophy.com doesn't seem to be the place to do it. Still, I guess what I meant to say, was that it's good to see you too. Pedro I Rengel ILP Legend Posts: 6961 Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm ### Re: what Marxism really is..... Heck, the acceptance that we don't all feel the same way about everything, is what brings men to peace with the fact of war. Sometimes, you gotta do it. You gotta take up arms. Pedro I Rengel ILP Legend Posts: 6961 Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm ### Re: what Marxism really is..... But then, on a even higher level, you wonder: if they don't feel the same... what do they feel? And, after some time on that path, you become able to create characters that feel about things the way you consider the most terrible, that actually represents that type of character's views better than even people that actually feel that way can. Haha! Knowing thyself is only the first step! Commies! Pedro I Rengel ILP Legend Posts: 6961 Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm ### Re: what Marxism really is..... "Un fantasma recorre Europa..." When you're a teenager you're like damn that's fucking cool. And then almost immediately you realize, only a teenager could have written that and been serious. Marx was trying to create a movie, but in real life. We are knights on a quest! There are ghosts! There are evil men trampling on goodness! Republicans don't see evil men. They see idiots and fanatics. Pedro I Rengel ILP Legend Posts: 6961 Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm ### Re: what Marxism really is..... Would you believe it's only been a week since my last proper post, 13 pages ago? Time for too many words again: phoneutria wrote: Silhouette wrote:The problem with this conception is that, yes, there is no incentive to exchange unless both parties prefer what they get to what they give, but equally they don't exchange unless they reach an equality in agreement. this is not at all required for an exchange to happen what does it matter to you if someone wants to trade their rolex for your casio, if they're set on it? you can try to talk them out of it because you don't think it's fair according to your valuing method but if they really want it and their mind is made up about it, you're a sucker if you say no because they'll find another casio to trade with if you don't because ultimately it's not your business to tell someone what a thing is worth to them when you don't know them and it just happens that their last living memory of their father involved a casio watch or some other silly thing humans do it's about meaning and how it will be used not about cost of production not about labor So we're back to fetishism again here - two different types, one of which results in an exceptional exchange valuation, and the other in a more widely believed exchange valuation. Wherever I come across references to the "Law of value", it's referred to as an average (of "socially necessary labour") that goes into a commodity. To me, this suggests that the law refers to "value in general" as a rule rather than exceptional cases that you can think of that deviate from the wider consensus of human worth. I made this observation in my last post as well. So if somebody fetishises a Casio watch (which is actually more technologically advanced than a rolex) to be worth more to them than a Rolex, they're imbuing something extra into the value of the product - whether or not there's more socially necessary labour that went into it than what they're exchanging it for. In a sense, they're buying memories on top of the physical watch, which ups the perceived worth compared to what's valuable in such a watch to people as a whole. Similarly, the luxury connotations of the Rolex brand more than likely drive up its perceived exchange value far beyond its use value, and beyond a truer reflection of how much work actually went into producing one. To buy into this more commonly accepted fetishism still doesn't reflect how much "a gold watch" is worth to humanity - it buys into the "status" competition of peacocking, which exists beyond any one "luxury" item and isn't contained within any item in itself, the use value of the item or the amount of work that actually went into making it - but in the act of showing off how much you can waste and still remain in a financially viable position. This is the psychological game that "branding" plays, nowadays used aggressively in conjunction with the advertising industry for the express purpose of replacing rational decisions with emotional ones that they repeat over and over until some sense of legitimacy sinks into the weaker minded of the masses. By contrast, it's a completely forgivable and very human weakness to associate items with precious memories, but that's still not a reflection of the value of the actual item that just so happens to have been the one that imprinted itself into the mind of some specific individual. It seems fairly common sense that people as a whole don't put so much work into producing something that's going to be worth less to people. Entropy does the work for us when it comes to things "naturally" turning out the way they do, and the only way to divert/slow/manipulate entropy is through human work. Working against entropy is hard - by the laws of thermodynamics, you have to put more work into a system than you get out as useful (valuable) energy since there's always some energy that escapes through heat or some other form of "wasted" energy that escapes: in order to abide with the conservation of energy. It follows that humans would only apply as much labour as they do to a valued outcome in proportion to how much sacrifice is necessary in order to achieve this deviation from letting entropy do what it otherwise would do. So as far as laws go - this "law" of value turns out to have a physical basis after all. In Physics, "work" is actually another word for energy, and work is just a synonym for labour. I was initially skeptical of whether the "Law of value" deserved its status as law, but it actually does seem to check out. This movement of the West away from this basis in reality and into fantasy actually destabilises markets, because when output valuations are so commonly removed from the input of socially necessary labour, prices can fluctuate wildly and unpredictably as a consequence of shifting fashions and attitudes. Plenty of people argue in favour of a gold standard to stabilise the fiat model that we currently use - but even this fetishes gold beyond the socially necessary labour required to extract gold. Yet, even with todays removal from the root of human value, average values from socially necessary labour still correlate with the pricing of the outputs of almost all industries (exceptions being oil related natural monopolies) with almost unheard of correlation coefficients when it comes to statistics. The only reason for trying to remove exchange value from the labour theory of value, facilitated by means of things like advertising, is to increase the surplus value (that increases the exchange value above the labour value) to literally scam consumers into taking wealth out of the hands of the working class and into the hands of the capitalist class. Modern economics serves the purpose of theorising around this scam, conceiving of value as fleeting and circumstantial: instead of asking what something is worth in the context of social necessity it asks the question "well what do you individually think it is worth right now?" This is what spirals inequality out of control, because along with all the above, the abundance of the rich allows them to hold out for a better deal - and the relative immediacy and desperation that is the only option available to the poor means they have to settle for a much worse deal. phoneutria wrote:again, equilibrium is not a requirement "I think you're making a mistake, but I'll gladly take that off your hands if your min is set on it" another obvious example, if you have ever bought or sold a used car is you'll do your best to drive the price up while the buyer will do their best to drive the price down If equilibrium is not a requirement, what is the settled-upon price? Without an equilibrium, each party would infinitely be fighting for better value. In your own words "you'll do your best to drive the price up while the buyer will do their best to drive the price down". Due to this reality, the less needy party can hold out and even deny any trade whatsoever where the more vulnerable party is forced to sacrifice more and quicker: rendering them worse off than if the exchange was between economic equals. And just because they might gain something they value from the transaction, they still lose what they traded that they might even value more had circumstances been normal, something which might normally be more valuable in general - in this way the poor are punished by this model of valuation by virtue of their poverty that is already punishing. Vice versa, the rich are rewarded for already being richer. A more objective valuation of commodities would prevent this spiraling effect. phoneutria wrote: Silhouette wrote:He's not wrong, but neither are you. I'll agree with half of that sentence. I'm changing my stance to agreeing with the other half phoneutria wrote:well then do you concede that there is no such thing as a "law of value"? So in light of all the above, no. Also, you can determine exact value at the point that a commodity comes into existence by means of the labour theory of value that comes from the law of value. It's testable, it's falsifiable, it's scientific and deserves its status as law. "Supply and demand" are both estimations - and you can only evaluate prices at the point of purchase. Even worse - it's only really after the point of purchase that supply and demand can stand a chance of being determined, making this conception of exchange value circular as well as arbitrary and cricumstantial, and therefore untestable. Categorically unscientific. Further, supply and demand they can be artificially manipulated - a perfect example being "De Beers" launching their advertising campaigns to fool the public into overestimating the value and necessity of diamonds to inflate demand. They also withheld stock to create the illusion of scarcity, manipulating perceptions of supply. To be fair, the latter was only really possible to the extent that it happened due to their effective monopoly, but even if the market could have been said to function according to Classical Liberal theory, with the industry subsequently flooded by competition, evidently their market pricing still suffers from the perception of diamonds as both a luxury item and a general social requirement for events like weddings. The effects of fetishism and articially inflated demand remain in public consciousness even today - and although the physical properties of diamonds are really cool and useful, they're hardly being optimally utilised when they're stuck onto rings solely as a symbol. phoneutria wrote:if there was a good thing about marx writings, i'd hear it but I haven't you've been saying that his economic is great but we just saw the labor theory of value, the law of value, surplus value, and exploitation all go belly up not a logic originally accredited to me, of course I'm sure you've heard this stuff before, no? if like me you've read marx and engels and ricardo but also bohm-bawerk and von mises evidently for a rounded perspective so if there's something good in marxism let's hear it I don't think the labour theory of value, the law of value, surplus value and exploitation have been particularly challenged so far - but since you're so much more widely read than me, I'm sure you have better arguments yet to come. phoneutria wrote:the fact that artisans being paid what they are worth plus taking the time they need to take renders products entirely out of reach of the population? how much did a pair of shoes cost in the 1600s? artisan work still exists and their products are top notch I'm all down for handmade italian leather shoes I just can't justify spending the$1000 they'd cost me
on fucking shoes
when you can get a decent pair for like \$50 at an outlet

There's nothing dictating that artisans fetishise their fairly unique status as artisans and bump up their prices as a means to relieve the rich from the "burden" of having too much disposable income. Well, there's nothing about the actual shoes themselves - only the arbitrary supply and demand nonsense that founds modern models of economics. Even the old artisan traditions are warped by Capitalism.

phoneutria wrote:you sound like more like a luddite than a marxist
because
the disconnection between worker and end client isn't caused by capitalism
it is caused by industrialism
and marx poses no solution to it
again, he did not want to shut down production lines
he wanted to seize them

removing every incentive to individual excellence
but somehow ending up with an overproduction
figure that one out

I don't want to smash the machines - I'm not a Luddite.
Alienation isn't solely a product of industrialism.
The disconnection between worker and the final product is.
The disconnection between worker and themselves when their employment isn't in line with their personal development and satisfaction isn't due to industrialism.
The disconnection between and what makes them more than just animals, being narrowed to only a small part of their total creative existence isn't solely due to industrialism.
The disconnection between workers and other workers isn't due to industrialism.

The first aspect of alienation is mostly excused on behalf of the payoff staving off scarcity - for as long as this is a significant issue facing an economy. The technological advancements that began industrialism, and which resulted from industrialism solve the problem of scarcity by delegating mass production more and more to machines. As scarcity becomes less and less of a problem, this first aspect of alienation becomes less and less worth the sacrifice and industrialism actually ends up with the potential to cure the above first aspect of alienation that it caused in the first place. So to this extent I'm actually in favour of the machines and do not want to smash them whatsoever. And the other aspects of alienation have no dependence on industrialisation in the first place.

Marx's reunification of economics with the worker makes room for all of these types of alienation to become cured as scarcity becomes less and less of a problem. The encroachment of automation is very real, so we're facing a point where finding "productive work" for humans (to justify an income to justify buying means to live) is less and less justified as a capitalist dictum. Humans win the ability to spend their time away from necessary unpleasantries, developing themselves, opening up exploration of their selves, and not being pitted against other humans to justify an income to afford means to live at all.

phoneutria wrote:this whole thing is bullshit
not adding meaningless labor as a way to drive up cost
often labor is the most expensive part of manufacturing
factoring in insurance and benefits and whatnot
which is why industry is hot for automation
this just doesn't happen
straight up nonsense
if anything, what you are describing sounds like a welfare program
which is government subsidy to maintain conditions otherwise unsustainable
businesses are more than happy to put useless people in the street

but as you said
consumers are also workers
and workers are also consumers
it is a wonderful thing that the cost of living a decent life has gone down as much as it has
just consider how many people in the 80s got to have a computer
or how many people in the 1600s got to sleep in a bed
volume economy and free market benefits everyone

It's not bullshit - yes, industry is about cutting costs, but more completely it's about cutting opportunity costs relative to market advantage. Costs are good if they enhance or at least secure market share.

If one company is finding a new role, even to add only minimal value, the tiniest extra edge on gained market share demands that other companies follow suit just to maintain their relative revenues. I mean, think of those "greeters" you get in shops nowadays. It's taking away customer service resources from elsewhere in the store, and the vast majority of the time they're literally just "standing there" to provide the appearance of maximal friendly coddling to customers. Even behind the scenes there's always more "checks" that can be made on actual work done, just to reduce that little bit more human error or to adhere to new rules that regulate all these new market advantages. Retail and admin are in practice bottomless pits of adding that little bit of extra value just to stay competitive. This race to demoralising meaninglessness in jobs is at least affordable by virtue of consistent improvements in automation, but instead of alleviating pressure on more productive work that's still not been automated away, it's put into mere appearances or anything at all to gain or maintain a tiny part of market share. There's never a shortage of young kids new to the workforce and with no work experience, forced into a situation where they have to settle for whatever work experience they can get no matter how dehumanising, slowly pushing down employment to less and less skilled work in spite of all the schooling qualifications that they have that would enable to be so much more to a company. All just for the sake of fulfilling the capitalist dictum to jump through hoops to get an income to justify expenditure on human means to live.

I know this is all true at least in my life because I've both lived and seen it all around me at all points throughout my professional career, and consistently confirmed it with all the other people around me along the way. Merely anecdotal, I know - but just one more paragraph if you don't mind.

Once again, I'm happy for the offshoot of technology progression - I mean fridges, ovens and washing machines were all there before I was born, but my computer can do cooler stuff now. The internet is amazing though - that was one genuinely life-changing invention that's happened in my lifetime, and putting it on a mobile phone was really clever albeit annoying now that I can be bothered that more easily. Maybe the richer you are the more you'll be affected by all these technological progressions, I dunno - material shit isn't that big of a deal for everyone.

phoneutria wrote:again
your job is to fill up my warehouse
an you get to name your price to do it
i pay you
and you need not worry about anything else

I take on the onus of upfront production cost
of giving you the means to work
and of moving that merchandise
for better of for worse
if I'm operating at a loss
and if my business goes under
it is none of your concern
just as it is none of your concern
if I'm operating at a profit

or are we just about socializing profit
but privatizing loss?
should the laborer share that too?

You can keep reminding me how things currently work as much as you like. I'm approaching the topic in terms of how things could be improved - and I think at least some of the basics have long been penned, in part by this Marx guy, whoever he is...

Didn't we already cover the self-fulfilling argument of "risk"?
Like, it's only a risk because so much was rewarded to these riskers as a result of it being considered a risk.
And it's not like a business going under doesn't also affect employees when they lose their jobs. Employees don't just bounce effortlessly from one job to another, and since it's an incentive to pay wage labourers less to do more, often they're living paycheck to paycheck and losing their job often hurts them worse than capitalists losing some excess of disposable income that had available to them to invest in their failed business.
So often it's not even much of a risk even if it wasn't a circular argument, especially when you consider not just the absolute value of the capital lost, but also the resulting situation that employers versus employees end up in.

phoneutria wrote:jee are we criticizing a desire to feel safe and secure?
how barbaric

Criticising its ontological justification at a purely theoretical level, yes, but criticising safety and security in themselves? No.
The deviation from ontological justification into something with utility to allow this for myself and others can be good to an extent.
There is an extent to which I fully support any means to enable me and others to live securely and safely, and there's an extent beyond this humble appreciation that is abused that I do not support.

phoneutria wrote:you do realize we're in the middle of verifying the validity of the labor theory of value, right?
there's no labor implied in a piece of land
does that mean it has no value?

There's no ontological justification to give land an exchange value, no.
The same applies to people.
Land and people are just "there", the latter breathing and otherwise metabolising passively with relation to the former - existing is not a job.
Work is the latter interracting with the land in a specific way such that value is actually extracted from the land by the people.
Hence labour theory of value.

phoneutria wrote:ad we could have the cake
and eat it too
but then we'd have no cake to sell
oh noes

Hilarious

phoneutria wrote:in capital volume one he wrote that prices fluctuate around labor, necessarily
as a fundamental piece of his theory of value
there is no clearer way to say this
this is engels speaking for marx in volume 3, saying we done fucked up in volume 1
he wasn't describing capitalistic behavior
he was writing a theory of value
and he was wrong

Admitting mistakes and correcting them as you go along is something I'm in favour of.
If thinkers don't progress and change intellectually as they go along, they're probably not thinkers.

phoneutria wrote:the state does not need to do that
the market corrects itself
if an industry is necessary
then when capital leaves it
the products become scarce
the prices go up
the industry returns to it
all the state does is allow for unsustainable circumstances to linger uncorrected
for longer than they should

Yes, Classical Liberal theory works "in theory".

The State might as well be just another business according to modern economics. It has its supply and demand effects on the market, and the market adjusts accordingly to that supply and demand as it does to that of all the other businesses and consumers. The State influences the market in much the same way as any other business, and in theory the State could even be used to balance out the power imbalances between the rich and poor if it weren't so easy for capitalists to hold the State for ransom.

If there's one thing that seems to remain a point of agreement between Marxists and anti-Marxists, it's the aversion to Crony Capitalism. The right is just against the "Crony" part, and the left is against the "Capitalism" part as well as the "Crony" part. The right often misunderstand the left as being against only the "Capitalism" part but for the "Crony" part, but this is incorrect. They're both after an improvement to things (unless they merely want to conserve the ways things already are for fear of change), but they disagree on the means to those ends.

phoneutria wrote:who is asking that we abandon consideration for the value of labor?
who in a capitalistic system has "no right to sustain their means to live"?

The Marxist interpretation, or at least my interpretation, is that Capitalist proponents are at least inadvertently abandoning consideration for the value of labour.

And in a capitalistic system, those without incomes have no right to sustain their means to live.
They ought to be able to trade their exploitation for at least a basic income to sustain a meagre means to live unders Capitalism, but there are many factors that affect the practice of landing even a basic job.
These days you need to already have experience in a job to get one like it, education means nothing since it's so commonplace, and all the rewarding jobs are already taken by older people who were already there and don't want to leave. And for many people, they don't even have much of an education anyway, nor contacts, understanding of the world of work - there's so many hindrances that the pool of unemployment is always significant. The denial of income to the unemployed is such a threat to the wage labourer that all kinds of concessions will be settled for, to the detriment of spare time to use to better yourself and your chances and the lack of an affordable, healthy environment/neighbourhood to be surrounded by. It's not simple to act in this neutrally rational taken-for-granted way that "market corrections" assume. Human realities get in the way of the capitalist theory.

phoneutria wrote:*facepalm*
you be ragging on my style and flair
get a brains, moran

Your style and flair sucks, booo hisssss.
Learn to spell, maron.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4402
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

PreviousNext