<I pay for the machines


Exploitation, your not entitled to anything I produce you parasite

uhh. Well…
Like I say, I pay for YOUR right to work.
How can you say I am the parasite when you are using all that I have PAID for.
You should be paying me for the privilege to work!


What about the risk inherent in being a prole? At any point in time my job is in jeopardy of being shipped overseas, wages cut, or losing my health insurance, then I'll be in debt and starving. The capitalist, if he goes under, still has millions more $ to back him and chances are he'll get off without a scratch, unlike having to file for bankruptcy like the average prole. There is more risk in being a prole than a porky.

Replace the capitalist with the Feudal or the Slave owner. Your "logic" would still apply.

The problem with it is, of course, that there isn't much incentive or ability for slaves, serfs and proles to work efficiently, and a good reason to initiate class warfare against you.

Actually a good, thought provoking thread. Too good for Holla Forums!

Think I should sell this thread to /leftpol/?

I'm a capitalist and I don't have millions of dollars waiting to bail me out of any bad investments. Get fucked, commie. You people always conflate capitalism with oligarchy. You don't understand how economies or political systems work, otherwise you wouldn't be advocating for such retardation.

Capitalism was built on oligarchy, look up the English civil war and the century of conflict that followed it. The market needs the state, and the bourgeois state needs the market. The two were forged together.

Capitalism is an emergent property of human civilizations. It predates the English civil war by a long shot. This is why I argue that the conflation occurs with lefties so often. Austrian economics definitively proves that free trade is something that is organically a part of human societies.

Agreed. Being a business owner is a MASSIVE risk. Especially if you're trying to start up small but of course you'll make it in the end if you word hard enough!

Of course man! You see capitalism is actually free trade and is entirely entrenched in human nature… even nature itself!
Animals have territory. Animals own their own private land!
Atoms trade electrons!
Gommies always try to lie to people about the nature of capitalism but you and I cannot be fooled!

So, the solution is to completely ruin the economy and hope a bunch of untrained people can somehow keep trade and industry going so everyone gets fed?

Not it is a stage of development, sure one that has spread to human civilisation but it is just as endemic as the slave-classical or the feudal economy was. It is a step in development, sure, but ike the steps before it it will eventually fall due to its own inadequacies.
I am no saying that, I am saying the English civil war is perhaps the perfect example of the development of the second (the first being the Dutch republic) bourgois state and the first state to overthrow a domestic feudal order (the dutch war was a war of independence, thus they were overthrowing a foreign feudal order). Still capitalism in the British Isles only properly took off properly with the advent of the bourgeois parliamentary system that followed the civil war. It's the reason why the low countries and GB were the first industrialised regions in the world: because they were the first to develop bourgeois states that complimented their capitalistic development. Still, the inherent oligarchical nature of the bourgeois state is conjoined with the development of capitalism, hence why modern China is developing so quickly along capitalist lines: because it is effectively a pure oligarchy comprised of the land-owning class.
U wot? Ask yourself, what is the natural state of man? It is tribalism no? Ask yourself, what is the relation of production we see in hunter-gatherer tribes. Does one man own all the spears, own all the huts and charge rent upon those that live in them? Or is the means of production held collectively in the community by all those that owned it. In fact this system was kept in place for thousands of years after the development of agriculture in societies in Mesopotamia. In fact, it is socialism that most reflects the nature of man, it is socialism that is found in man's natural state. Free trade and laissez-faire economics is not endemic to human society, it was developed by those that sort to destroy egalitarianism for their own aims.

As opposed to the current situation where we have a ruined economy with a bunch of untrained aristocrats and mass starvation only kept at bay through capitalist breadlines?

Nobody gives a shit about you. You'll probably go out of business in a decade or so anyway, no matter how much you exploit your workforce.


Mods anchor this thread!

Any reactionaries should read at least the following before trying to debate on here.

You're on a leftist board; Capitalist has a specific meaning on the left; somebody who owns the means of production, purchases labour-power in order to produce surplus value and accumulate Capital, and in so doing acts as the conscious arm of self-expanding value. If you mean, "I support the Capitalist system" then fine, but that doesn't make you a capitalist according to our definition.

Not if we practice good politics
Bourgeois is a slur for people who are not poor. The solution should be to carefully work on regulations and policies and programs to make sure that the population is well and that the country's economy/budget are sound. You cannot blame the complex troubles of modern society on the bourgeois by claiming that the very existence of this class is inseparable from tyrannical capitalism (which, in your terms, is also indistinguishable from oligarchy).
Uh, just saying that you agree with socialism and then saying that free trade is bad doesn't prove it. It just proves that you're making bad comparisons. Those societies were small. They didn't need larger systems to keep their society running. We do (in America). We can't just each sharpen our own spear and run around hunting and then leave our spears in the town armory for tomorrow. You were just hoping that I'd be tired and miss the fact that your closing argument is a big opinion.
Yeah, communities tend to be communal. This doesn't make them socialist. You can't seriously be proposing that individuals / small communities are responsible for all of their food and resources… This is the reason why people choose to buy from companies. It makes their lives better. It allows them to achieve and create and be happy instead of literally being a member of a primitive tribe.

Lol. That's like me calling Sanders a commie. There are similar elements between democratic socialism and communism, but they're not the same, and I know that. You should know that what you just described is an indulgence in political smearing.
what the actual fuck are you talking about

ty for reading list, saved, fug

Ironic porky posting can be healthy

Clearly not well enough to know that Sanders is a social democrat and not a democratic socialist.
If you'd bothered to read Capital you'd know.

I'm going to have my lunch now, but put simply Capital is self-expanding value, value in motion. It is "self expanding" in that it produces a surplus which can be reinvested into the means of production. A capitalist acts as the conscious facilitator of this expansion (or, as it is known in Marxian economics, "accumulation") by investing his accrued surplus-value in MoP and Labour Power. To call it "self-expanding" value is to contrast it with the simple M-C-M movement, for it is qualitatively no different to the M-C-M' movement of capitalist production and sale. Accumulation can then be described as M-C-M'-C'-M' '-C' '-M' ' ' and so on.

I did miss out some info from Vol. 2 and 3 which fits bonds and stocks into the acceleration of this accumulation, but that would needlessly complicate things.

I appreciate the explanation, but I get how that works. I don't get why it's a bad thing, though. Personifying and commodifying the concept of value is pretty useless and meaninglessly abstract. Value is different for every transaction based on the interests of the parties. You're basically saying that as soon as someone starts to make a profit off of trading, that SOMETHING interventionalist should happen.

Surplus-value is by definition extracted via exploitation, and the natural Capitalist movement toward greater exploitation simultaneous with decreased relative demand for labour-power leads to unemployment, poverty, "pauperism", and misery for the great mass of people. This occurs because of the natural tendency for labour power to decline in value with increased productiveness, the relative surplus population acting as a dead weight on the worker, the desire to keep the price of variable Capital as low as is feasibly possible, and the position of the labourer as an individual with no commodity but his labour-power.

Westerners are lucky in that curbs have been placed on these natural laws of capitalism thanks to democratic struggle, but in the third world these curbs do not exist and thus we have child labour, low wages, and desperate poverty. This is what Marxists call "imperialism"; Lenin's accessible work on the topic is worthwhile, and for a modern take see David Harvey's book.

The Marxist conception of value uses the class process as its entry point, and only "personifies" value insofar as it recognises it as a social substance with no existence independent of the relations between free commodity traders. That is, value is not inherent to a commodity unless it is seen as useful and is traded with the owner of another commodity (in the Capitalist system, money becomes the sole socially acceptable manifestation of Value).

Any explanation I give is going to be piecemeal, and I really have to get going because I'm supposed to be meeting someone for lunch. So if you want to get to grips with this conception of economics, I'm afraid there really is no other way than picking up either the three volumes of Capital itself, or Harvey's far shorter, modernised books on it (mainly "Enigma of Capital", "Seventeen Contradictions", and "Capital and the Madness of Economic Reason"). Capital doesn't take into account some important modern developments, like imperialism and the minimum wage in the West, and others it naturally spends less time on (service economies weren't really a major force in Marx's day, so while he does discuss services, they feature a less prominent role than manufacture), so you may want to go with Harvey if you find reading 3,000 pages of political economics you may not even agree with a little too much.

There are other seminal works like "Finance Capital", "Imperialism", and "Capitalist Accumulation" that are good to read after Capital, and the leftypol reading list should have others too.

Also, there are other modern critiques of Capitalism other than David Harvey's; Anwar Shaikh's monster of a book "Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises" is worth reading, though not explicitly Marxist, it is certainly in line with Marxist critiques, and in fact touches on Marx (and others working in the Classical tradition), although it does presuppose a solid understanding of orthodox, Keynesian, and post-Keynesian economics, so isn't really an introduction in any sense of the word. Harvey is way more accessible, but if you're good with maths and economic terminology, Shaikh's book is a good read, though quite dense.

By the way, before I go, remember that Marxist critiques should never be moralistic, they should be based on an analysis of the contradictions, inefficiencies, and the immense waste of human labour power and intelligence that is a product of the general laws of capitalist production.

If anyone mentions "fairness" or some other moral judgement as an argument for communism, they likely haven't read any literature in this tradition.

Wonderful post.
This interpretation of "surplus value" says that the reinvestment of capital in the means of production is somehow immoral and implies that there is some way to achieve the alternative. How do you direct the distribution of energy from an energy company and how are the workers fed? Who decides how to moderate this system of making sure that nothing stemming from the labor of people ends up in the pockets of cronies? This is where it would be important to distinguish between anarchocommunism and totalitarian communism.
I agree that it is a tendency of capitalism to exploit, in a non-pejorative sense, advantages in the market. However, I do not see how a growing capitalist economy contributes to a lack of demand for labor power. It definitely places corporations in a position of power where they can extort entire classes. But this is why regulation is such a nuanced and important issue.
I nearly completely agree. However, the basic point is that capitalism allows a nation-state to accomplish things it would otherwise never be able to. The society must be enlightened and actually participate in the governing process. I advocate for incremental changes that lift up the poor and still allow for others to move freely through the market as they see fit. Can't we solve classism without a complete overhaul?
I agree completely, except for that this type of ascription of value extends to every decision a human being makes. I don't believe that you can put economics in the type of box that Marxism says it should be in.
But hell yeah man, I'll check out Harvey. I have to finish Callahan first, but I'll be back here sooner or later.

All politics should be rational and not influenced by emotion. I won't jump on the point right now since I haven't consumed more than the basic Marx, but no one's ideology is immune from logical, rational, and moral/ideological critique. Is that statement more a result of capitalism's or communism's immorality?

You cannot have capitalism without class.
The issues of any class system cannot be solved while that system still exists.
Slave society, feudalism, capitalism…
The issue is twofold, the issues inherent in capitalism and the issue of class itself.


Either you're the old cappie poster or you're the new one who got better at role playing a cappie.
Either way good on you.

Rite, had to go to a lecture; back now.
Except bourgeois regimes; be them democratic (the US), authoritarian (China) or hybrid (Singapore), all trend towards oligarchy. This is mostly down to a few reasons, but mostly because of the fact that wealth trends to the ones who have control or ownership (not necessarily the same thing) over the MoP. And with wealth concentration, comes nepotism, elitism, kleptocrats and eventually aristocracy. As such the best means to provide for a society that runs as a true meritocracy is to do two things: 1) decentralise economic power (I.E: ownership of the MoP) to the greatest extent that can be done so reasonable, 2) make access to education and knowledge attainment free at the point of use and without debt for all. This way you prevent power structures from forming due to nepotism and you have a populace where those with ability in the fields of governance can hone those skills and thus rise to the top. It would not be perfect, perfection is impossible, but it would be the best possible way to ensure good politics.
No it isn't. Bourgois, the original french term, referred to urban french aristocrats. In a Marxian sense (this is a marxist board lad) it is merey those that possess the means of production and do not work them themselves.
Pal this was the state for things for about 20-30s in most European states, you know what happened? First was that the imperialist structures the west relied on wealth extraction started to collapse (leading to the 1970s oil shock). Second was that the laissez-faire members of the bourgeois class, which had fought the keynesian/social democratic order from the start were gaining more influence again and the third is that the inevitable result of capitalism: economic crises due to overproduction, took hold. This ended this era of regulation for the people, budget and economy that was the social democracy consensus. In some states it was destroyed thoroughly (UK, US), in others it transmuted into corporatism (Ireland, Germany) and some managed to remain nominally social democracies but would eventually fall foul of the globalist trading paradigm (France, Scandinavian states). The system you want can never survive as the bourgeois class will always want to seek the greatest profit for themselves: and providing social welfare and full employment is not profitable.
No the troubles of modern society are caused by the inherent and unique features of capitalism, the bourgeoisie just perpetuate those issues by upholding a system that it is in their rational self interest to uphold. You have to remember, we don't see members of the bourgeoisie as inherently evil (although some of them are); they are often as bound to the materialist structures of today's society as the rest of us are. As for the term "tyrannical capitalism", I would not use that term per-se. Perhaps more that capitalism is inherently authoritarian and anti-autonomist; there have been many states in history of authoritarian regimes without explicitly tyranny: tyranny is too emotive. I am a man who attacks structures, not one who says a group of people are inherently evil. Without those material conditions, they could play a useful, non-destructive role in society.

Saying "capitalism and free trade is natural" isn't either, besides I didn't say free trade is "bad", it is better than say the serf-lord labour-as-rent relationship.
You know what I hear this a lot. "Socialism can't work because there are too many people", what makes you think structures cannot be built that work outside a commune? What makes you think we cannot create systems that take the cogs of production and organise them together?
Well in a lot of sense, one can "sharpen their own spear", but you see, those societies also had specialisation of labour. A tribe wasn't "everyone goes to hunt, then everyone picks berries, then everyone makes tents". No, people had skills, they had roles, they had specified labour. This carried over to the sedentary settlements that mankind would develop,, there would be those that work the fields, and those that made the hammers. Living in communes that would survive thousands of years. Now I am not an anarcho-primitivist, I am not Ted Kaczynski, I am not arguing for an anarcho-primitivist society. I am merely trying to show you that if such structures have existed in the past, they can do so again. It also shows human nature is not one of greed, of narcissism nor one of pure self-determination: but one of recognising the need of collective action for survival. If mankind was inherently greedy, it would not survive as a species. Any pack animal (which is what we are at a fundamentality) with such a prevalent trait does not survive. It is wiped out by its own lack of foresight. Humans are fragile animals, we need to live in groups, we need protection from the elements and such. We evolved as a collective species. I would recommend Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid: A factor of evolution"; it goes into social anthropology with this regard far deeper.
The point I am making is "muh hooman naturé" is bollocks and founded in nothing but a phrase spat out so many times it has become "truth".

No, it makes them communist, specifically "proto-communist" as it is described by Engels.
Where on earth did you get that idea from?
Now who is presenting opinion as fact.
I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick laddie, we don't care if people grow their own food or if it is purchased, we care about the means by which it is produced and the means by which the distribution and exchange take place. I am not in favour of giving everyone an allotment and letting them grow their own food (although honestly, it is a good thing for the soul), no I care about farmers owning the land they work rather than being hamstrung by companies that damage the local environment. I do to a degree believe in more localisation of production, mostly because outsourcing does not help the developing nation or those outsourced from, and that on an environmental level localisation production is better, but you see: the point I am getting at is that capitalism is not some natural phenomena, quite the contrary it contradicts the fundamental evolutionary path of man.

Also this is a good thread.

I detect moralism. Marxists are not concered with shoulds and oughts. Those are for liberals.

The capitalists in this thread are either trolls or some of the dumbest people I have ever seen.

(nobody uses Porky flag unironically)

I think everyone agrees about wage slavery and government/corporate propaganda that perverts/degrades culture. Does a hypothetical communist America export goods or maintain a military defense system? This sounds exactly like a forced anarchocommunist state. This major, usurpatious power transition - that apparently has to happen - would cause the collapse of the country well before it did anything else. Do you consider any American politicians Marxist? What is the immediate goal for Marxists to achieve in America?
Both of these ideas can work with what conservatism will have to become. The first one is already a classic libertarian ideal, and the second is going to be absolutely necessary to fix our poverty issues. It all just comes back to government corruption. Reallocating funds is congress' job - so we could fund anything we wanted to if they listened. Regardless, the example of having a completely decentralized economy and a nation that educates/trains workers for free is interesting. However, I'm not sold that those two measures for meritocracy are naturally going to remain in place. I am curious how Marxists want to transition to this state, and how the balance of power is to be maintained once there.

While it is a calculated and rational approach to criticizing capitalism, it still suggests that the bourgeois are complicit in capitalist state crimes (exploitation of the people), and therefore must be regarded in an adversarial way. If the transition doesn't go perfectly, the amount of markets that would collapse instantly would be devastating. Think Republican bills are bad? I suppose if the party managed to gain power in the government it could happen.

Checked. Well said. This is relatively similar to true nationalism.
This system is not acceptable because it will retard connectivity and every single other benefit of having a unified country.
You're arguing that consumers don't always have a choice, which is true to a certain extent in a lot of different US markets. But I haven't been convinced yet that the cost of converting to a commune-focused country and economy. It would not be worth the overall loss of access to goods, services, and the countless benefits of a good national economy. The Debt is probably worse than the price gouging, if we're going to be honest about the downsides of capitalism. Are you convinced you can keep the diverse economy active? Everything that you're describing is something a good normal conservative American government should do (not exploit local farmers).
This is where lack of privacy and government/mob compulsion to participate in an economic system comes in. Such regulations are not acceptable simply because a bunch of pissed off people have a coup and put them into place.



I have sour news for you user: it's either communist self determination, in which all that stupid consumer shit you crave stops being a thing because people are no longer forced to make it, or capitalist bourgeois domination, in which case all that stupid consumer shit you crave stops being a thing because the economy inevitably collapses due to the rapacious nature of the profit motive.

The economy as you envision it is on borrowed time, so your choice right now is either self determination and communal ownership of productive property or serfdom beneath your technocratic bourgeois overlords.

Yes, because they are.

Being a petit bourg isn't what I was talking about, retard. If you didn't eat up all the small business bullshit you wouldn't advocate for such classcuckery. I hope your shit business goes under.

Surplus-value is not inherently immoral in and of itself, it is just value that is surplus to the requirements of the labourer (i.e. Value created not by necessary labour, but by surplus labour). Without surplus product being devoted to an expansion of the productive forces society would cease to progress. What Marx objects to is a system in which Capital is accumulated in few hands, and in which decisions as to what to do with a societal surplus are not those of the workers, but of individual Capitalists or groups of capitalists. Further, the motive force of Capitalist accumulation, profit, dictates all decisions as to what to do with a surplus; social needs play no role whatsoever.

Exploitation is about non-compensation for excess (or "surplus") labour. Even if the Labour market is such that Labour-power is paid for at its Value in every possible transaction, exploitation is still an inherent part of capitalist production because without it profit could not be made, and thus there could be no extraction of surplus value or Capital accumulation.

The accumulation of Capital decreases the demand for labour relatively but not necessarily absolutely. The demand for labour may rise, but the tendency towards more powerful productive forces requiring fewer men will always cause the demand for labour relative to Capital to decline (or, as Marx terms it, the "organic composition of Capital" (the ratio of Variable to Constant Capital) changes in its proportions, with Constant Capital being favoured). Because the labouring population reproduces itself at an ever expanding rate, while the relative demand for labour continues to decline, the tendency toward a relative surplus population becomes apparent. Once established, this surplus population has a twofold purpose; to work during times of Capitalist expansion (only to be repulsed once again when wages rise), and to act as a dead weight on the labourer keeping his wages down and his job security low.

It certainly allows the national bourgeoisie to achieve great heights, though this is always at the expense of the non-propertied classes. Capitalism does build up the productive forces of a society extremely rapidly, yet also fails to take full advantage of these forces, treating them as nothing more than a means to accumulate, and as a result wasting masses of Labour and productive potential. Capitalism is a system in which anarchy in production reigns, and as such the productive forces never become the common means for societal progress that they ought to be.

No it doesn't. The conception of value exists in the trading of commodities specifically; say, money for Labour-power. An object only has Value as understood in Marxian economics in this specific social context, that of free commodity owners exchanging goods on a market. What you are describing is the "fetishisation of commodities"; ascribing something mystical to value, seeing it as something inherent to an object and not an emergent property of a particular mode of production and exchange. A social substance with no existence independent of the interactions between individuals in a society.

An example is the money-commodity. Many see money as Value, and not merely the only socially acceptable manifestation of it. The value of an object is related in its price, with no understanding of what the equivalence implies about both the commodity and money.

Btw, I'm the same guy from yesterday, but I changed flag