New Existential Comics

tip top lel

pepe was /r9k/ originally

But the best thing in propaganda is to appropriate your enemy's symbols and use them to promote yourself.

Translation: our memes are nonsensical and funny, and promote nonsense as an ideology. Therefore, your memes suck!

To the Nazi, this is supposed to be a bad thing. How exactly are you dumb fucks different from BuzzFeed?

Requesting the falangism webm if anyone has it

Come one, when has porky or any of your shitty appropriated memes been featured in anything outside of 8/4chan?
You guys even fucking lack the basic chan lingo. you speak like you're LARPy Marxists and I will bet that most of you invaded the chans from some anarcho-syndicalist forum when you heard that Holla Forums, shitposting right-wingers, started to get some traction and affect the online enviorment to be more right-wing.

...

what?

face the reality, we are, in the huge majority, current or old pol users.

I really fucking doubt that. Are you?

Not him, but I am. Before then I posted primarily on Holla Forums and have been active on halfchan since 2008. This board was founded by ex-Holla Forums and those who were banned from it. Our steadiest stream of new users is and has always been people getting banned from Holla Forums for dissent. Plenty of former GG and other general crossboarders as well.

I know that a hard pill to swallow, but almost everyone here is chan native.

I've been on Holla Forums since day 1 of its rebirth and /a/ for many years before that, although I never used /new/ or /n/.

Sorry that longtime 4chan users disagree with you.

I am.
I literally learned english on 4chan Holla Forums, than migrated here after Moot censored pol for awhile.

So what did you post on Holla Forums and what got you banned

Holla Forums doesn't even have any memes, they're all just recycled /int/, Holla Forums and /r9k/ memes.

Seriously what turned you away from libertarianism, fascism or any other LARPy right wing idea to marxism?

M8, I started going to 4chan in late 2008.

For me, It has been a slow process through some books like What is property of Proudhon.
I go sometimes on Holla Forums but the 🍀🍀🍀people of david🍀🍀🍀 meme for everyone whose a globalist is kinda annoying.

I believe it was for making mention of the fact that most of the qualities a certain poster was attributing to "the Jews" was entirely synonymous with capitalists as a whole. I was subsequently banned for "Defending the Jews." Mind you this was over a year ago now, but I really have had no inclination to return at this point as we still see bans rolling out for similar reasons.

Mind you I was never really fashy or anything of that sort; at worst I had a stint as a socdem with some slightly conservative social leanings. It was also around the time of vacating Holla Forums that I realized that they basically are just practicing their own version of idpol with little concern for dealing with the underlying structural issues with our society.

So you're not a Holla Forums veteran then, you have only read some marxsist books and thought to yourself "Wow so that is how the world works". Have you ever read anything right-wing, because I actually read through that tomb of a book that is das cappital, so I more or less know where you're coming from do you know where I or anyone on the right come from?

Can you give me some screen caps of such bans?
Can't you see that you're treating the capitalist as Holla Forums treats the Jews? There is nothing wrong or exploitative about a man owning the means of production and then hieing people to work with said means while he is gaining the profit. If they don't like it the can either leave, become one of the owners of the means of production or start a fucking commune and out compete the capitalist.

...

OK, explain why the following statement is wrong

It's amusing that your ideology puts white on a pedestal, yet you seemingly recruit them by appealing to complete retards.

You guys never come with arguments do you?

...

...

That is your fancy way of saying "I have no arguments to muster against you, so I will just call you stupid and move on so that I won't have to answer to any uncomfortable holes in my ideology"

Gulag this faggot

What? I have no idea what you expect me to say. He literally said it's better to appeal to retards than attempt to tell people something, I sure agree that it is more effective at getting people to believe things. Just look at how much garbage people believe because they just soak of vapid shit from mainstream media. Hes basically saying they should emulate them by appealing to people with edginess and violence instead of anything of substance. If "victory" is having hordes of drooling retards who base their beliefs on shitty OC made to appeal to retards then I'll give you the medal myself champ. Go forth and yell at niggers on the internet and dryhump your anime girl Hitler daki, truly these are the wages of such a stunning "victory".

Yes I have, he never really answered this argument. I will admit that I read quite a lot of Austrian economy before I read das Kapital so I might be biased, but where does he, not directly obviously, address the main counter argument to his ideology.

But again, there is no fucking arguments from you guys. I can go to Holla Forums and talk about race being a social construct at least they will critique my stance on it

The quote you posted starts with "There is nothing wrong.." it is a moralist position, and morals are a spook, therefore a claim starting with "There is everything wrong.." holds the same authority

You are a moralist faglord, typical bourgy

...

OK so blowing your brains out is a-ok with you because morals are spooks because nihilism.

'Wrong' is a spook but profits are made through exploiting workers (not a moral argument, it is explained by the LTV).

With what capital?

Production still governed by market forces, so commodity production still operates.

If you'd actually read Capital you'd know all of this already.

...

Blowing my brains out means I will be dead and it is not in my self interest to commit suicide

Not yet, I might do a couple of terror attqcks on the bourgy when I grow older

Stay btfo tho

That is my point, using the arguments I presented earlier, he does not answer the given statement.
I never used that term

Sorry misspoke, committing murder is a-ok according to you

Commiting exploitation is a-ok according to you

But you did.

Yes because the person knows that he is being exploited and can(potentialy) leave whenever he feels like

I never used the word capitalist, i used your definition so you couldn't trap me in any way.

Lad, this level of abstract thinking is pretty autistic even for Holla Forums

Ok therefore the person being exploited can murder the exploiter whenever he likes

No it is not that is how most people with a job(not that you would know anything about that) operates.

Again, you are implying the exploited will respect your moral position wheremexploiting is good but killing wrong

Dozens of revolutions prove they wont

What do you think the owner of the means of production is called?

Hint: it's not a worker

This happened when I mentioned the fact that the anti-semitism meme is getting old, with literally this reason for the ban. It was permanent.

Devil's advocate here, but
Many jobs nowadays don't require much capital at all. It's not hard to get a loan to buy computers for a startup software engineering firm. And there are many self-employment options available. And if you have some money, you can buy land and extract resources from there, or you can buy MoP from other people.

This has always made me a little uneasy when I hear people say that capitalism is inherently exploitative - there is usually the option of learning and becoming self-employed, or getting loans for your own business.

Sure, but it doesnt stop there, self-employment doesnt end profit banking, taxation, property rights and so on

I would say that's fair, but don't these sorts of start-ups, especially in fields like software engineering have a high-risk of failure? I would say that's probably especially the case in most industries with low startup costs. Given the sort of competition you see in those industries, I don't think it would necessarily be in the interests of your average worker to go into such an industry. Even if a worker had an interest in one of these fields, starting a company comes with a lot of costs and risks. Many more than running an established company.

I don't give a shit about the "revolutionaries". The point here is that the worker has the agency to not be exploited. If I know a guy is ripping me of in a card game I don't keep coming back to him now do I?

Yes, he is the capitalist

And i dont give a shit about how "job" operates

Wrong, see

I think its more important to consider that this is an abstract way of thinking which doesn't account for totality. We can't all be self-employed (except in socialism), as long as capitalism is in place it is impossible for every worker to become self-employed. There is still no liberty for most workers.

Hiring workers is inherently exploitative, since they produce the value.

Self-employment also is exploitative, as you have to outcompete other capitalists (thereby exploiting yourself) or you would go out of business.

Again, this is not a moral argument, exploitation is not inherently bad or evil. It's just how commodity production works.

you shouldn't think of exploitation necessarily as something which makes workers feel victimized and which they are always conscious of and will avoid at all costs. Rather exploitation is simply what our economy runs on. The existence of profit implies exploitation as Marx fairly exhaustively showed in Volume 1 of Capital.

Unalienated labor is genuinely rewarding and thus provides an incentive system altogether different from the traditional incentive system in capitalism. But often times this sort of way of living is simply impractical for people as I explained in .

The existence of the wage system is evidence of this fact. Work is unpleasant for most people under capitalism. It is not necessarily something that people do because they want to work but rather it is an activity done in order to make ends meet.

The difficulty for workers in escaping this system of exploitation is not "how do I become petty bourgeois?" as often times that option is simply impractical. The difficulty is rather "how do I move past the scarcity inherent to my position?" For many workers, they can't. Which is why the majority of people will keep doing work which is unpleasant to them. It's not because they've been ignoring a better option all along, or because the secretly love their jobs, but because, their job provides security and viability which is otherwise unavailable in a capitalist system by design. So they must accept whatever terms their boss imposes on them in return for viability and stability.

In order for capitalism to function as it does now, there must be an implicit threat in the boss-worker relationship which keeps workers in line. You can suggest that this is necessary or desirable, but you cannot suggest that it doesn't exist.

You make a fair point about the high risk of failure for starting businesses.

How does self-exploitation work if you get all the product of your labour? I understand that you need to pay taxes or whatever with your wages, but is there something else I am missing?

Thanks for your detailed response, that clears it up for me.

Nice post fam

You are competing with other businesses who do exploit their workers, who can then lower the prices of their products (Since labor is cheaper).

You have to compete with these prices by lowering your own, thereby exploiting yourself (in a sense).

In any market system there is competition. Capitalists stay competitive by maximising their profits (cutting costs) which the re-invest in their enterprise.
A self-employed worker has to thus remain competitive to stay in business by also having something to re-invest with. Thus they use their own surplus labour. Since they are self-employed and don't have the means of a capitalist to cut costs they must ultimately use their own surplus to a greater extent.

Sure, but then you are looking at a much narrower spectrum of human endeavor, at least from our perspective. I won't argue against that choice, but know that these are the trade-offs. There is no way to have all work in a modern industrial society be inherently rewarding. Not even close.

Commodities have a Socially Necessary Labour Time, which is the average time it takes for a commodity to be produced, if you want to outcompete others you have to lower the SNLT of your commodity production

For example, if a cake, on average, takes 40 minutes to make, 30 being in the oven and 10 min of preparation, imagine having to prepare a cake in 5 minutes and baking it in 20

I personally dont agree with this notion, i dont see it as exploitation, because without patent, copyrights and global mutual developmemt everyone could lower his SNLT with new ovens and machines, and also because I feel Marx forgot something, lets call it Socially Necessary Waiting Service Time

To be blunt, I dont give a shit how long it takes you to bake a cake, what I care is the time between my desire of cake and the realization of the desire, so if it takes you 1 hour to bake a cake but 30 sec to serve it, vs a guy who takes 20 minutes to bake a cake but 15 to serve it, it is easy to see that, despite you having a longer SNLT, you will outcompete the other guy

Moreover, if we stablished that the SNLT of a cake is 40 min, then I could label it as exploitative, and demand a 15 min time for its preparation, if everyone did the same, its easy to see how we could keep adding and adding minutes to the SNLT, with the purpose of "not exploting ourselves" and nothing would be done

Markets are therefore a desireable tool, but private property isnt

...

man this page in the comic sucks. Did they run out of ideas?

The self-employed laborer and the coop-laborer are not free from these laws of value. They are not free to do with the products of their labor as they please, but rather governed and disciplined by forces of competition and thus their labor is still alienated. This is where the communist criticism of "market socialism" comes into play. Workers who vote on how the products they produce are allocated are still controlled by the laws of capitalism.

How much of the product of your labor you take home in terms of value and how much of the product of your labor you must continue to invest in your business are all determined by forces over which you do not have any control, at least if you aim to make your business in any way successful.

That being said, I'm not sure that it makes sense to call this phenomena "exploitation" as it's really not the same as exploitation. There is no boss who takes home or invests the surplus value you create. In that sense, no one is profiting off of your labor, but the amount of money in wages you take home, will not be the same as the amount of value you produced if you aim to grow your business (perhaps this answer was not satisfactory. I admit it is very difficult to apply Marx's framework for traditional capitalism to co-ops. I will think on it more).

Fair enough. A lot of the more tedious work can and has been automated. As well I remember hearing that people feel more fulfilled in their work if they know that what they are doing is useful to the community. That, along with having a sense that the products of your labor are really yours (that is my understanding of unalienated labor) can get us most of the way to a society in which labor not something that has to be forced onto people.

it's ok, friend. You may be dumb. But tankies are significantly worse :^)

Automation is the desireable result of market competition

Humanity, as a whole, created it, by forcing itself to lower the SNLT in order to reduce labour time

This is why marksoc/mutualism is prefferable to planned and command economies

15 minutes to serve it*

So why did the commune failed

It was sieged by statists and cappies?

The lack of a hierarchical goverment doesnt mean the lack of an army serving it

Proudhonism is the short and sweet answer. They didn't try to appeal to rural areas outside of france really, so you had soldiers from those areas used against the people of paris

Why do you believe in Communism?