It's easy to understand why anyone would sympathize with Marx. People inherently deserve the products of their labour

It's easy to understand why anyone would sympathize with Marx. People inherently deserve the products of their labour.

Furthermore, you don't want enormous power structures to classcuck you out of your rightfully owned work. You shouldn't be worse off materially having those systems of power in place.

But doesn't this just lead you to libertarianism rather than communism?

Some people will work many times harder and much more efficiently than others, ending up with much larger portions of amassed labour, especially if they autistically do this for many years.
Imagine the best vs an average worker: 40h/w at 50% efficiency, vs 100h/w at 85% efficiency. In 10 years, that guy working 100 hours will have output more than the other guy will by the age of his retirement.

If people own the products of their labour, how can a state rightfully take that away from you?

And if you want no state, you'll still need to have protection agencies. Those protection agencies will be of value to people based on how strong they are, so naturally they will conglomerate until there is only one super-strong agency, creating a de-facto minimal state, thus giving you libertarianism.

It seems like Libertarianism is more true to the core values of communism than communism itself.

So why be anything but a Libertarian?

Because it's retarded.

No, people deserve to have their needs met, and given how productive our technology makes us, there's no reason we can't provide for everyone.


Why not be a libertarian Marxist?

Let's say this is the only moral basis of Marxism/Libertarianism, how is libertarianism more moral when capitalism inherently involved wage theft?

Read Marx, educate yourself. All profit is stolen labor, communism is just the working-class effort to shake off it's chains.

What you are describing is anarcho-syndicalism: People get the full product of their labor, nothing else and nothing more. It's not as popular as other, more universal, leftist movements. But a lot of anarcho capitalists become anarcho syndicalists when they realize their ideology would only create neofeudalism.

Great post! My problem with syndicalism is how is it decided who gets to be in which syndicates, and which syndicates get which resources, especially which land.

Looks more like Market Socialism tbh.

It seems you don't understand what Marx means by 'exploitation'. I recommend reading an Introductory text on Marx's theories of surplus value, or listen to Richard D. Wolff's lecture series on Marxian Economics.
Imagine the best vs an average worker: 40h/w at 50% efficiency, vs 100h/w at 85% efficiency. In 10 years, that guy working 100 hours will have output more than the other guy will by the age of his retirement.
Seems like a misconception of what Marxian Socialism would look like. Marx never wrote a book on Communism per se (The Manifesto is all about Capitalism, unfortunately) but from "Critique of the Gotha Program' and 'The German Ideology' it is generally extrapolated that it would be a centrally planned Labor Voucher system, not 'everyone gets paid the same'. Marx and Engels were not egalitarians, they thought egalitarianism was utopian. They just proposed an economic system that did not produce an artificial hamper to equality and exacerbate inequality (i.e. Capitalism, with the Law of Value).
I hope my post isn't rude, thanks for a polite-ish OP, RightLibAnon.

Becaus private ownership would not be allowed.

As a general point I want to emphasize that one should own allowed the labour ~they produce~, whether that be through vouchers or money or whatever. The question to me is how much one actually produces.

That jpg (and your post) is similar to these posts so I'll address it all at once

It's not so clear cut to me that surplus value is the big factor here, or even that all surplus value is produced by the laborer themselves.

Consider the following:

There is a lumberjack in a libertarian world, chopping, selling, transporting logs by themselves.

Meanwhile, you, lumberjack 2, spend your own labour developing a labour-multiplying system for chopping wood, where by yourself you are able to chop ten times as many trees.

As a result of lumberjack 2's efforts, people won't need logs as much, and thus I will not be able to contribute as much value as I used to. Thereby one's labour value diminishes just by virtue of other participants, even before I engage in any system.

Continuing on, suppose lumberjack 2 decides to employ me, lumberjack 1, in his tree chopping system. With his system, I benefit in an important way. By participating in the more efficient method, my labour value is no longer diminshed because I can keep up with the greater scope of production.

Secondly, assuming that we ought to keep the products of our labour, I don't own the system that multiplies labour because I didn't spend my labour to create it or maintain it. But I am still owed something, which ought to be at least the amount of value that I would get under self-sufficiency (before other participants). I am owed this because indirectly diminishing the value of my labour is not allowing me to full access to what I own.

So, assume that I get AT LEAST the amount of value I would have gotten under intial self-sufficiency (before other participants). If lumberjack 2 ends up extracting more than this through a system he made, how can I lay claim over something I wouldn't have ever come into contact with without lumberjack 2?

Well yes, many of us believe in libertarianism. Unless you're talking about American neoliberalism which has nothing to do with it.

That's Lassalle, not Marx. Read Critique of the Gotha programme.

If lumberjack 2 ends up extracting more than this through a system he made, how can I lay claim over something I wouldn't have ever come into contact with without lumberjack 2?
If lumberjack 2 hired lumberjack 1, than I'm sure he needed help him in something. This means that L2 wouldn't have been able to create as much value alone as he did through the help of L1. Why should he lay a claim over the other's labour?

L1 has ownership over the total labour value he would have made without L2 being present.

L2 has ownership over the system that multiplies labour value because it is a product of his labour.

L1 would have to claim ownership of the system to reap its additional rewards, but he can't do that because he would be claiming rights over someone else's labour.

L1 doesn't lose the things he is entitled to, because he is entitled to the value he would have made without L2. L2 just so happens to have the kind of system that gets him additional value from L1 being present in it.

It's maybe even worth dividing surplus value into two categories.

1. Value from the increased efficiency of the system
2. Value from complementary laborer interactions (a non-necessary part of 1)

(1) is where most of the surplus value comes from. I agree that Value from (2) is possibly divisible among the laborers, but in significant disparities in accumulation of labor value would still occur

that's where you're ignorant of labor vouchers, kiddo

The only problem with capitalism isn't that capitalists steal your labour. Private property always grows itself when people are used to serve on it for someone else. The owning-class will always go out of their way to increase their ownership. With no government to regulate it they would become their own governments and impose their own rules. There is reason corporate monopoly has been growing after the US started deregulating more and more in the 80's. Even the romans realized that you can't let one person own as much as he can get, everyone will get fucked if they do government or no government.

If you want soft socialism with all the markets and everything you should look up mutualism.

I'll humor you. It's not just about owning your labor, you are ignoring the entire structure of Capitalism.
You are also being really specific and ignoring that they are entirely different ideologies, with many differences, and your example came out of nowhere as well. I had these two fuckers in my mind and then you said "Why is the state entitled". Like where is that even coming from??

I want clarify this really fast: nobody (I hope) actually wants this "owning the products of your labour" thing here. There would always be a part of the total social produce that would have to be reinvested into production, used for taking care of the sick, young and elderly, and used to perform administrative duties, so you wouldn't get to keep it all.

Your proposed system sounds pretty weird to me. Let's say L1 by himself produces x, L2 on the other hand can produce 10x under a certain amount of time. Now the two of them cooperate, together they produce 20x. According to your logic, L1 is entitled to x and L2 is entitled to 10x (the amount of x he produced without L1). The obvious problem here is that the remaining 9x wasn't made by anybody apparently. You could say that it was only produced because L2's machinery, but I would easily answer back that was it all thanks to L1's contribution. So this is a clearly useless way of determining the amount of contribution to society.
A better way to calculate their compensation would be to look at the amount useful labour they carried out under and hour. This would mean that both of them get 10x, but L2 also receives a compensation for the creation of the sawmill according to the hours he worked on that and the intensity of the of the work compared the one they performed together. A socialist way in other words.

How would labor vouchers abolish commodity production?

By making the socialist system functional, so it can develop the productive forces till we reach post-scarcity.

I'm not talking for me, but "here" we do have some market socialists/mutualists/left wing market anarchists, but yeah this is not marxism and Holla Forums is mostly a marxist board.

No they don't, no more than gold is inherently valuable. The idea of 'deserving' is meaningless outside of a social context, and what is accepted as being deserved is socially decided on mere convention.

They won't. But we'll use them when commodity production is abolished.

By eliminating exchange.

No, that's collectivism or mutualism. Anarcho-syndicalists can be either but an anarcho-syndicalist can also be a communist, indeed most anarcho-syndicalist theorists have been communist . Anarcho-syndicalism is a method of struggle and a mode of management, but different economic prescriptions can fit under the umbrella.

No such thing. People "deserving" things is purely subjective and idealistic nonsense. Besides, absolutely everything the people have is a product of their efforts. Would a God-King of a despotic state got his power through some other means other than his and his predecessors' struggle for it?

That is precisely what Marxism suggest, unless there is an abundance of a resource/it is more rational to manufacture it for all at once, which would logically lead to it being distributed by demand.

Marxism is objectively defined and consistent. Libertarianism is a pipe dream - and nothing more. It needs not to even be compared to Marxism, for at is an intangible fantasy that religious triumph of a an idealistic concept would magically bring peace on Earth. If I needed a religion, I'd rather choose Christianity, though.

labor is meaningless outside of a social context

This is false. Point out any activity that would be considered labour under some social context, but wouldn't be considered labour now, or vice versa.

Of course, the society may no longer have demand for the resource that was produced by a certain type of labour, but when it did in the fast, it will be seen as labour regardless.

You are wrong.
Without society there isn't any individual. If you somehow had a person growing up in complete isolation, they would be feral and lacking in every quality a rational civilized person would possess. If they aren't driven by rationality and are merely fulfilling animal impulses they aren't performing any "labor."

You can only have an individual if there is a society. Even if you have a Robinson Crusoe type situation where an individual is separated entirely by society, whatever labor he performs is still going to be influenced by his assimilation within that society.

Civilization is a social activity. The individual has no need for dikes or calendars or mathematics or reasoning. If you put a feral individual down in a wilderness where it can satisfy its needs, it similarly isn't going to suddenly develop complex reasoning skills or tools ex nihilo.

"Labor" as we understand it only makes sense in a social context. Without the individuals relation to society, none of his "labor" makes any sense. It would be directionless and purposeless and ultimately futile. Without the social conditions necessary to produce the complex tools and implements that humans need to survive, whether its a stone axe or a giant mechanical combine, there is no labor worth doing. Try digging a ditch by hand and see how far you get.

Labor is meaningless without social conditions. If you think otherwise you are emphatically wrong.

Marxism doesn't have a basis in morality. Exploitation may be a reason why one might become a Marxist, but it's not the reason why Marxism is correct as a immanent critique of capitalism. After all there were Ricardian socialists before Marx who saying that Ricardo's Labor Theory of Value proved that capitalism was immoral and that led them to advocating for cooperatives. It might be a good way to get libertarians into socialism, but you'll likely turn them into Market Socialists rather than proper Marxists, if you withhold the full critique for only a limited understanding of exploitation.