(I apologize for the sarcasm, but we’re getting to that point again when posts are so stupid, I cant manage to do anything but make a joke out of em)
Nah, it’s funny. I could do an executives work in my sleep. Urwrong is WAY out of line for saying that’s they’re more valuable not only than 1 person, but hundreds of thousands of people.
He stepped WAY over the line here! Making fun of him is the right thing to do.
I was on my way to replying to the second part of your post addressed to me
when I realized that you’re here just taking the piss
further evidenced by the fact that instead or responding to what I said to you
you just come back and say ugh so ignorant
but primarily for your lack of interest in addressing what’s staring you in the face
like
yeah
just like it’s easy to gloss over a headache
when your fucking leg is rotted and falling off
such things as empirical facts
like how every 3rd world country is able to reduce the amount of people under the poor and miserable line, increase wages, increase the rate of early childhood education etc etc in the span of a few generations
as soon as they embrace free market policies
as you know, and peter as well, “free market” is not a political system, it is an economic system
but it is organic
and set on the same rules that govern nature
which is why it doesn’t require policy to happen
it happens on its own once you remove all the half-ass poorly conceived bullshit you put in place to fix problems while causing more than you had to begin with
see, and then you want to say I’m the one who is not taking the subject seriously
no and also noticed you didn’t propose what it might look like
maybe that’s because marxists aren’t too keen on abstraction?
which is also maybe how there can be so many obvious holes in a theory
like assuming that 1 man hour is a constant
or relying on a growing productivity while at the same time removing every incentive to make that happen
and i’ve made it abundantly clear that I have exactly zero problem with that
i go in I sell my time for an agreed amount, and then i get paid
i incur no risk
the thing i built may never be used at all, it doesn’t matter, I got paid what I asked
no, in fact, the employer doesn’t need to justify anything
but sure
once again zero problem with that
would love it if you learned brevity by removing all this unnecessary flair from your text
fuck yeah
did you miss all that stuff about bezos?
sorry, what’s the interference?
i have a feeling you wrote all that to make a point
but then you’re saying they already interfered…
and I’m not seeing it
it’s ok to make a criticism of marxism in a marxism thread, yes?
the best argument for marxism in this thread, paradoxically, is that it has never been proven to work
lol
because every time someone tries and fails
someone can say
that’s not REAL marxism
hahahahahah
and for the record, I don’t take sides
i have no political affiliations
i don’t vote
OH I SEE
the problem with soviet russia is that they just weren’t high tech enough
fuck, problem solved then eh
you’d think marx woulda written “develop the internet first” there somewhere in the manifesto
just like a race war
or a sex war
bunch of “wars” about people thinking they’re entitled to shit
when was that?
I’m absolutely not taking the piss.
Apologies if it came off that way.
I am, however, expressing general frustration - and it wasn’t intended to appear centred on you so hopefully you aren’t taking it like that. You’ve probably had this same debate many times in your life too, but the amount of times I’ve had it, with basically no progress whatsoever - is getting to me. It’s a really important debate too, and I’ve put a lot of effort into trying to have a productive discussion yet I keep finding people to be so persistently polarised and embedded in their “position”. My own flaw for losing patience, of course, and I don’t like taking out my flaws on others. That’s a sure way to prevent anything constructive coming from any discussion.
So please do continue with what you were going to say to the second part of my post that quoted you. I actually held off responding to your post because I was waiting for part 2 - my most recent general post where I didn’t quote you was to address the development of the thread in general while I was waiting.
But if you want me to address part 1 before you’ve finished part 2 then I can - and thanks for your response in spite of my typing too many words for a casual work day engagement with the thread…
To finish with this post of yours first though, you bring up the “no true Scotsman” fallacy with your mention of “that’s not REAL marxism”.
This is a common accusation, but I want you to objectively assess what Marxism is versus the movements that associated themselves with Marxism.
Granted, you need to know “what Marxism really is” in order to do this - obviously it’s easy to accuse blue of being orange because it championed an orange banner, and dismissing anyone denying that blue is orange with “sure, not TRUE orange”.
I’m still not taking the piss, by the way. There is literally “the dictatorship of the proletariat” versus “the dictatorship of one guy”. The former is Socialism, the latter is Autocracy. The former is an entire class of the vast majority of an entire population, and the latter is… one guy. And Socialism is only even a transitory state for the purposes of dismantling Capitalism before the State “withers away” entirely giving way to Communism.
So tell me:
What does an oppressive Totalitarian state have in common with the non-existent, withered-away state that literally defines Communism?
I’m not being funny here, for all the common ground I’m sure we can force between e.g. Stalinism and Communism, they’re absolutely at odds at a fundamental level. Can you agree with that?
You also bring up how third world countries prosper under Capitalism.
Wouldn’t you believe it, Marx’s Historial Materialism suggests just the same thing!
The transition literally evolves through Tribalism through Feudalism, through Capitalism, through Socialism to Communism (and so on?)
Of course backward third world countries benefit from a decentralisation of power.
History doesn’t just stop at one breakthrough though, it continues - in this case through a further decentralisation of power, and it’s in line with the exact same progression that Captialism gives way to Socialism.
Let third world countries progress through Capitalism, by all means.
Let first world countries progress through Socialism, by all means (and no, I don’t mean “Social Democracy”, which is just Capitalism with a smiley face).
Please tell me you know what Socialism actually is (without invalidly appealing to the No True Scotsman fallacy again)?
Another main point of yours is that you’re fine with the systematic redistribution of wealth by Capitalists within their company.
I can’t take that away from you.
I just don’t really know what to do with that…
I can remind you though that not everyone is okay with the systematic denial of material wealth that YOU have generated, such that it may go several times over to an employer who doesn’t even have to contribute anything once they’re rich enough to employ people to do anything they can but better (for less), and way beyond the point where they’re really risking anything anymore.
I acknowledge the risk that is involved with a new startup. Let’s reward that!
I acknowledge the work that an employer does to start their company, and maybe they continue to do valuable work for x amount of time after this point. Let’s reward them in the same way as any other worker doing the same!
Can you acknowledge that there is a threshold that can be (and is) breached where the contributions of an employer no longer justifies their returns? I appreciate if you think there is no point whatsoever where enough is enough, but perhaps you can appreciate that not everybody might be okay with granting powerful individuals an unlimited potential to abuse their power.
“I may be wrong though.”
You are, and that’s okay, to a degree, you can be forgiven.
No owner → No worker. It’s a simple concept. The fact that you ignore it, blatantly, demonstrates how spoiled you are, and take-for-granted, the business owners and contractors who sign your paycheck.
I think, deep down, you know the challenge of trying to be a Contractor yourself. If you admit to this, then your ‘marxism’ would end, and your ‘capitalism’ would begin.
So, can you, or can you not, start your own Contracting business?!
Urgh, just to put an end to this “no owner no business” nonsense, just make a thing. Do a thing.
Seriously just do anything for someone. Anything. Make something that’s valuable. Does that make you a business owner or just a literal person like anyone else who wanted to do something?
Profit for the world because you contributed value. Good!
It’s literally that simple. No “ownership” is needed. You’re not a capitalist because you did something nice, for your own benefit or for someone else’s.
Does it make more things possible if lots of people come together to make/do?
Yes. Obviously.
Does ONE central guy need to “own” the entire project because “he” thought of it and gathered everyone together?
Absolutely that guy did a valuable thing if he did!
Absolutely does nobody need to “own” anything for him to do so.
Have a central MANAGER by all means. This is why owners EMPLOY managers to manage for them. After a while, that’s all owners need to do - they got off the ground and didn’t fail YAY - celebrate that absolutely. But now they “owned” themselves into redundancy. Now other people run the business that they started. “Owning” it is now redundant. They earned their due, let it be rewarded - what’s with the ECONOMIC RENT that ensues?
Is this getting through to anyone?
Ownership is a fucking ideology that’s great for beginnings while it actually means something.
Then it doesn’t.
Simple.
What’s capitalism in a nutshell?
The patent office.
You know who invented the mouse? Xerox. Did xerox make a cent off the mouse? No. Apple and Microsoft stole it from them. What about bell laboratories?
“Bell Laboratories was, and is, regarded by many as the premier research facility of its type, developing a wide range of revolutionary technologies, including radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, information theory, the operating system Unix, the programming languages C and C++, solar cells, the charge-coupled device (CCD), and many other optical, wireless, and wired communications technologies and systems.“
How are those patents working out for them?!
We ARE a communist country for the ultra rich!! The thieves!!
The intellectual property doesn’t even go to those who invent the fucking shit.
Dennis Ritchie invented C.
and I am drunk so i’ll be brief
but that idea that ownership is an ideology that doesn’t really mean anything is not just false
it’s preposterous
you know what a little baby’s first word is, usually?
mama,
then the second is dada
the third one is MINE!’
toddlers even go through a MINE phase when everything they see and touch is theirs
ownership is as hardwired into our physiology as is sex
ask promethean how he felt the first time he bought himself a fancy car that he thought he’d never be able to own
there’s even a video of it somewhere
it’s why corruption is so rampant even in non profits
even in co-ops
even fucking everywhere
and why those people at the factory floor are working so hard for their evil incarnate capital holding masters
cuz they wanna fucking own something
and why marxism as a theory is damn infantile
just assuming that people are going to keep working their darndest when they can’t own anything
when their wages won’t be determined by their productive output
when they can’t rise in life because there is nowhere to rise to
makes that bearded old man sound like a starry eyed fool
You’re drunk so it’s all good 
I hope you enjoy your Friday night.
For when you wake up, I’m gonna suggest considering what you wrote about calling a baby’s third word being “mine”. And then calling Marxism infantile.
Not that Marxism is “anti-mine” for everything you own - except the means of production. Have anything that’s yours, please. It’s if you’re going to use what’s yours to financially “profit” off people who are in no better situation but to need your employment - then it becomes a problem. Marx distinguished between money to consume, and money as capital. The former = absolutely fine. That’s normal, that’s nature, that’s necessary. The latter is where you get to “earn” more money by virtue of you already having more money. Is there a useful piece of equipment? MINE!!! Instead of allowing anyone who needs the equipment to use it, like adults might grow up to do after they learn everything isn’t “mine”, you gotta pay a tax to use what’s claimed as private property! Except because it’s “private property” it’s not called tax, it’s called profit. And when you reverse this tax, and only then is tax “bad”.
Kids learn to share pretty quickly y’know. I mean, not all of them…
You know what knocks the altruism out of people the best? Desperation. Lack. Panic. All the familiar emotions to the poor and the ill. I distinguish poor from ill because while you can be both, you can be rich and ill and still be driven by these things.
Basically you’ve gotta damage kids who healthily learned how to approproate “mine” pretty badly to get them so fixated and antisocial that they’re no longer driven by sharing and cooperation.
How are you going to bring up your kids, phoneutria?
To abandon such foolish “Marxist” sentiments as “sharing”? That’s stupid - revert back to your more primal neo-natal compulsions to succeed in this Capitalist world, or else you’re infantile.
Mine comes later than the third word but I’ll take this as polemic. Sure, and when they use mine, they are likely to use this for things that are not theirs. They are not using the word the way adults use it. They don’t mean the same thing. They make the same sound. They don’t have, remotely, the perspective to use it, and they are certainly not coupling it to working hard to get to own something that becomes ‘mine’. just because they make a sound like we make it doesn’t mean the are believers in legal ownership, in the slightest. Their concept is much more like some people’s concept of mine, I want it so it is mine, even if it is yours, which don’t give a damn about. They understand it as a term that means I get to use that, generally temporarily, often in this moment though I may not give a shit ten seconds from now - since to actually understand ‘mine’ in terms of legal possession you have to have concepts of long term relations that children at two DO NOT HAVE. They may drop that toy they took from the child who actually owns it or her family does, really, and never be interested in it again almost immediately. It means something like ‘gimme that’ and ‘don’t touch that cause I wanna use it and this word has some kind of magic power’.
In some extremely abstract hugely encompassing version of ownership. Tribal groups (and most of even the worst versions of large state communism) allowed possession of some items. However many tribal groups shared most things. Any modern conception of ownership, the specific forms of it, are cultural, and must radically modify what children engage in with the word ‘mine’. Because children at the age you are referring to live in the now and they use that term to take from others. So I suppose theft, repo work, licking new objects, trying to get one’s hand inside one’s mouth, picking your nose, pushing kids off ridable toys you want to use, spitting up food, and refusing to do things one has to do and wanting to continue doing dangerous things (like putting spoons in outlets) are also hardwired. But we might not want to build society around these things. And they are not the same things these desires manifest as in older children and adults.
There are adults who think they can buy other people and take what other people have by using some more sophisticated version of ‘mine’. Nobless oblige, passing around children between pedophiles, buy companies constructed on the hard work of others to simply sell them off for parts, undermining democracy with lobbying campaign finance etc, making up excuses to go to war for resources, stealing, identity theft, rape, pickpocketing, con artistry… All that mimics quite well the toddlers version of mine or at least part of what it means to them - I want that, I take it or refuse to give it up, entitlement.
“Mine” is a respected term for peaceful people. Overlooked constantly by those who think peace is “no possessions” - as in the song imagine by Lennon.
Why is it a peaceful term?
If someone always took your food and water … you’d die.
If your teepee wasn’t yours, six hundred people would lay on top of you while you slept and asphyxiate you.
The concept “mine” reduces murder rates.
Here’s the rub though… the concept “mine” also causes murder. A great many real wars have been fought over the concepts of mine or more.
So we have a saying for this, “need not greed”
But what really is “need” separate from “greed”. This distinction is the task of philosophers and the moral brain.
I love the bullshit spewed and spread on this forum. A smorgasbord of atrocious smelling feces ideas.
Right… make something or do something, and there is no “ownership”. What a Contradiction?
Why, the fuck, would anybody make things, if you don’t own the thing you make?
Hint: the Proletariat trade the ownership of the goods they make, or help make, for a steady paycheck. That’s called a trade. Furthermore, the business Owner, owns the the thing.
Not you, socialist. Keep your hands off other people’s goods.
Marxism is basic Thievery.
Urwrongx1000: Marxism is basic Thievery.
K: actually if you had read my post, you would know that capitalism is
basic thievery…once again, if you pay a worker $5.00 bucks an hour,
and then you sell their work for $10.00 bucks an hour… you are stealing
their labor and their efforts for $5.00 every hour… the difference between
what you pay them and what you get out of their effort and work…
that is why companies are always on its employees to be more
“efficient” because you can make more money off an “efficient”
employee then an “non efficient” employee…think about it…
an “efficient” employee will create $15.00 worth of effort or work and
then the business pays that employee only $5.00, so the business
makes more money on an “efficient” employee… $10.00 per transaction…
there is no way a business can make money without stealing the
effort and work of an employee and with hundreds and thousands of
employee’s… think of the millions and even billions of dollars the
company makes off of its employees…
and then the company/business turns around and treats the employee
like crap, like the enemy when it was the workers that made all that
money for the company by the sweat and blood of their efforts…
this is the great revelation of Marx…companies use and abuse its
employees and and that is where they make their profits which is used to line
the executives pocket, not the ones actually creating profits, the workers…
Kropotkin
Just to answer the questions, but not to initiate discussion because we know that’ll go nowhere:
- You don’t suddenly stop doing things when you finish paid work - all life is doing things for yourself or someone else. People actually suffer and degenerate when they never learned (or rather they forgot how) to do productive things in their own time. Work is actually a fundamental human need, regardless of being paid or not, whether you do it for yourself or others, with or without “ownership”. Think of all the people who make stuff for fun outside of work, all the hobbies that people have - they’re not doing it solely to “own” the result, to “have” it only for themselves after it’s done. The things that people (genuinely) freely choose to do are often very difficult and need a lot of practice and skill to get good at, but people actively pursue them anyway. It’s a really great feeling to make something for someone else or share and show off your work, for free, and to do favours for people. People even do that while they’re at paid work for no monetary gain, perhaps to create a supportive atmosphere or to help the team get something done by covering for someone or taking tasks off them when they’re struggling. We’re even all doing unpaid work here by writing on this board, there’s plenty of free education going on here and some people actually put significant effort into what they post.
It seems like people forget about this or something - maybe there’s so much unease and insecurity with how rigged the world of paid work is against wage labourers, once you enter the world of paid work? But there’s definitely a learned tendency to disproportionately worry about your self, even to the point of worrying that other people might get ahead of you if you’re anything other than disproportionately worried about your self. Even though there’s so much wealth around, it’s crazy how many people are still living paycheck to paycheck for full time hard work until they retire, and all the while only being able to buy the cheapest products that are on offer - just because supply and demand deems them so easily replaceable. It’s simply not true that we all stay in our infantile “MINE” stage all the way into and through adulthood - though maybe I can’t speak for others here. Most of us learn the inherent value of being social for its own sake - I guess that must seem so alien and impossible for people who never grew up.
- It’s basic thievery to pay people less than what they earn for you, but it’s legalised when an employer does it. Don’t pretend like employers have ANY say in how much the employer decides to take from what you earn them as this “risk” tax. At best you get to negotiate whereabouts you want to fit in the “market” range of salaries that you’re allowed, which is necessarily wayyy lower than what you’ll earn for them, or they won’t profit from employing you.
How much is risk really worth?
If you think about it for a whole second, you will realise its circularity: that the more “riskpay” that employers take, the more they’re risking, so the more “riskpay” they ought to be owed… and they’re only “risking” going to the same wealth as a wage labourer, who’re only relatively so poor because they pay employers so much “riskpay”. So think about it for a whole second more and you’ll realise that if employers didn’t steal so much riskpay from you, there’d be even less to risk from going under, since going to the same wealth as a wage labourer wouldn’t be much of a fall !!
I mean, it’s a ridiculous arrangement if only you think about it beyond “well this is the way it is, and I accept all the implicit assumptions that go into that”… Only if you don’t question anything can Marxism seem like thievery.
But really, no need to respond to this. I’m just stating facts.
If you were a student doing an assignment and had to google some quotes about, say, the marxist labor theory of value, and, in pulling up a list of quotes from various major thinkers, you found this wedged somewhere in between Smith and ricardo:
“the Proletariat trade the ownership of the goods they make, or help make, for a steady paycheck. That’s called a trade.”
… you’d immediately know who said it. ‘Yup, that’s the one from that Urwrongx1000 guy.’
Marx os nothing but a shadow , a contrast to Hegel. Possession of playthings, of wants? Or that of needs: that can guarantee lasting values.
Who or what can offer guarantees l like that? That is the states’ affair, and that of the religious insititutions which press for imprimatur , lasting and sacred.
There are some pressing needs, that overlap with wants but there are some which even which overcome them, and offer a stable and long lasting guarantee toward future generations. The dialectic between the essential and the material has been overlooked and short stopped, by a want for instantly gratifying substances.
Limits sought for lasting values, overcomes material ones, but substantive guarantees of even intellectual approaches to rights pf possession appear to encroach and decay by lack of the means of producing them by readily available representation , recall or simulation.
This is the problem with the will, and the power of reason to recreate the circumstance and the situation within which the ground remains a vital element. That ground should, must, circumscribe the minimum nexus between private and public possession, appropriation and sharing by utilization.
The relationship is not a static artifact but a dynamic play of containing many partially derived resblances.