In this thread i want you to destroy an intelligent libertarian/ancap argument against socialism (bohm bawerk's...

I'm guessing "intelligent libertarian" is not connected to the picture. Because there are lots of intelligent libertarians, but pic is not one of them.

youtube.com/watch?v=uOzotWrHheU
If the video is correct then Böhm-Bawerk based his whole argument around the notion that value purely individually subjective without actually trying to prove it.

I think it's possible OP is Love Life and Anarchy

Private property is a violation of the NAP.

Marxism/anarchism do not hinge on the labour theory of value, from whence did this meme occur?

Reminder he got put into retirement by his own student (Bukharin) who was a Marxian economist.

Bukharin begins by saying that his comparison of the two methods is only possible because both share the quality of being “abstract methods”, that is methods which abstract from the concrete details of experience to decipher the universal laws governing this concrete reality. He does this mostly to distinguish the two methods from a third: the historical school of economics which was also en vogue at this time. I have to take issue with Bukharin’s opening point though. It seems to me that Marx’s use of abstraction is not the same as that of the Austrians, the key difference being that for Marx abstractions are understood dialectically, not analytically. I will expand upon this point below. (1)

For Bukharin the difference between the Marxist method and Austrian method is that the former is objective and the latter subjective. This, he says, is because Marx takes the viewpoint of the social and the Austrians the viewpoint of the individual. Marx starts from society and proceeds by causal chain to reveal the determined individual while Bohm-Bawerk and his ilk do just the opposite, beginning with the individual, following a causal chain to the social. This is reflected in their respective theories of value. When Bukharin says that Marx’s value theory is objective it means that the theory expresses the connection between social productive forces and the prices of commodities. Marx is not concerned with individual motivations but only the limits to individual action. Here Bukharin quotes a passage from the Postface to the 2nd edition of Kapital saying that Marx considers “the social movement as a process of natural history governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence.”
(1/2)

Post the full quote next time, biscuit.

“Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.”

Of course this is Marx quoting Kaufmann’s description of Marx. I don’t really want to get into debates over textual interpretation but I really don’t think this quote adequately captures the subtlety of Marx’s theory of value or history, in fact I think it ascribes certain features of the social relations of capitalism to Marx’s theory of history in general, a mistake that Bukharin repeats often in this book. It is quite the case that in a capitalist society social laws in the form of commodities, prices, and capital dominate over subjects. It is quite the case that the “social movement” appears as “independent of human will”. But the radical part of Marx’s theory is to expose the historical nature of such appearances. It is not the case that a theory of history must find such a subject/object inversion in all past and future societies.

I would not characterize Marx’s theory of society in general, of history in general, as one in which the objective factor dominates over the subjective. Rather I’d say that Marx’s focus is not on the individual subject or objective conditions but rather on the mode of production which determines the particular relation between the subject and objective reality. Objects have no objective universal significance to humans. They are given meaning by people. Neither subjects or objects have any intrinsic meaning. Their meanings are derived from their specific mutual interactions. Marx calls these interactions the “mode of production”. The mode of production determines how people interface with the objective world around them, what meaning they give objects. In turn the mode of production proscribes a specific world view upon subjects: it determines what we want and how we go about getting it.
(2/?; IDK, thought I could do this in two, but what the hecc)

The capitalist mode of production is characterized by a rather specific subject/object relation which Marx refers to as a subject/object inversion where objects become the subjects. Objects called commodities take on social powers and regulate their productive relations between people. Capital becomes the active agency in society, consuming objects called people. This interpretation, which I believe is the correct interpretation of Marx, puts the fetishism argument at the center of his theory of value. Bukharin, on the other hand, only mentions commodity fetishism in passing in these opening chapters, referring to “the psychology of fetishism”. But fetishism is not about the psychology of subjects. It is not about people being fooled into misunderstanding the reality of capitalism. Fetishism is a description of the subject-object inversion which characterizes capitalism, subjecting people to the blind will of economic laws which Marx calls “the law of value”.

Such an interpretation would allow Bukharin a more nuanced argument. For instance, he often gives price as an example of a social phenomenon independent of the will of individuals. Bukharin’s target here is obviously subjective value theory. True- we don’t go to the store and pay whatever price we want. But it is also true that changes in demand do have at least temporary effects on prices. Doesn’t this mean that prices are influenced, by some degree, by the wills of individuals?

On such points Bukharin would have done well to read more of his contemporary Isaac Rubin on the form/content description. Yes we can make the argument that the content of value, labor, has a long-run effect on prices and that through the day-to-day fluctuations in prices caused by the colliding of wills in the market labor time is the ultimate determinate. But this is not even the focus of Marx’s theory of value. Rather the form of value is what was of interest to Marx. The form of value is the fetishism of commodities, the replacement of social relations between people by economic relations between objects. This allows us to identify all sorts of social antagonisms within the value form itself, antagonisms not apparent if we are just focused on the content of value. After all, Smith and Ricardo agreed that labor was the content of value but their theories didn’t lead to radical critiques of the inherent social antagonisms of capital. These social antagonisms are what allow Marx to identify the forces which constantly revolutionize production, changing the productivity of labor, changing the value of commodities. They also lead to cycles of crisis and prosperity. These are the really unique and useful contributions by Marx to the theory of price. The preferences of consumers very well may cause the prices of shoes to fluctuate above or below their values. But this is no where near as interesting or useful a phenomenon as the phenomena of crisis, unemployment, devaluation and all of the other features of capital we learn from an analysis of the form of value.
(3/3)

(1) For a discussion of Marx’s use of abstraction see Bertell Ollman’s “Dance of the Dialectic”

...

back to /pol damned sinner

(Gonna expand on Bukharin's criticism of marginalist theory RN, hold the line lolbertos.)

Let's not forget wage slavery, appropriation, unemployment, alienation, inheritance, commodity fetishism, the deceptions of the money form, ridiculous wastefulness, etc.

Like that changes anything.

no one can proof you wrong bruh

Well, you've got me stumped OP, I can't think of any.

youtube.com/watch?v=C-E7YQyYHZw

sumerizing, he said that exploitation doesn't exist because burgies takes risks instead of workers, so they deserve much the capital aquired by selling the products. also he said that labour theory of value is retarded because, just look, there are many examples of how values are not produced by work, such as trees(and their fruits) that grows spontaniously from seeds.

stay pleb commiecuck

i did asshat

Because modern bourgeois theory traces a path of causality from the isolated individual to the social it finds all of the categories of modern capitalist society present in the individual. This is an abstract individual with no specific social context. Bohm-Bawerk’s examples are a man sitting by a stream of water, a traveler in the desert, a colonist alone in the primeval forest, etc. In order to deduce the laws of capital from such an absurdist starting point the laws of capital must already exist in the mentality and actions of these individuals. Thus any choice our desert traveler makes is a utility maximization which produces a subjective profit!

Bukharin rightly points out the absurdity of such a starting point since the isolated individual is the not a historical precursor to society and hence, any theoretical abstraction of the isolated individual will naturally just read modern categories into his/her mentality. In reality individual choices and actions always are conditioned by pre-existing conditions. This leads to Bukharin’s central critique of the Austrain school, a point he will repeat in many forms throughout the book: that the theory of marginal utility is inherently circular in its logic. Our estimations of value are always based on a pre-existing world of prices. Our value estimates are not just based on an abstract desire for the use-value of commodities. Commodities also have exchange-values and these are very much in our mind when we form our preferences. It is circular reasoning to insist that subjective preferences determine exchange value when exchange value also determines subjective preferences.

The bourgeois abstract individual and his choices are the starting point for Austrian/bourgeois theory. In order to get this picture of an abstract individual making choices we abstract away all historically particular forms of production, all production in general, all historically particular forms of organization of social life, and all society in general. We are left with the incredibly banal observation: that people make choices. Then the Austrians assume, without justification, that these generic choices are the same types of choices the calculating, rational bourgeois consumer makes. Thus bourgeois society is the natural expression of innate human characteristics and we need no other information to understand bourgeois society other than these banal observations about the way we make choices. (This is asserted, not proven.) This form of abstraction, in which we abstract away all of the important specifics in order to get the most generic qualities and then sneak the qualities of the specific into the generic, is an ideological type of abstraction. It’s ideological because such a method automatically justifies the present order of society as a natural, universal order.

Marx on the other hand makes a different use of abstraction. Abstract concepts, for Marx, are always incomplete. It is their incompleteness that drives us to further probe them, to seek to ground them in some historic mode of life that gives them more concreteness. “Man in the abstract” is an abstraction that needs grounding. When we ground it we realize that “man in the abstract” is a product of a bourgeois society where social relations are atomized by commodity production, where people are divorced from their means of production and rendered merely abstract inputs into a production process. Thus Marx’s abstractions are not mere mental abstractions made by philosophers but real abstractions at work in the social world.

The second thing I like about Bukharin’s point here is his critique of the “historical” defense of circularity. It could be argued that circularity of subjective value theory is not a theoretical problem because this pre-existing world of prices is itself the result of subjective decisions, and those decisions were based on a previous set of prices themselves the result of another past set of decisions, and so on, resolving the problem of circularity to merely a historical description of the movement of prices… Indeed Bohm-Bawerk uses such an approach to explain “substitution prices” and later the Austrian von Mises would use this historical method to create an Austrian theory of the value of money. Bukharin objects. He says that this is actually an abandonment of theory, replacing theory with mere idiographic depictions. Merely stating that events happen in historical succession does not prove anything about causation, does not prove any essential economic laws.

(If anyone's interested, Nicole Pepperell has an interesting recent post on her new blog about Marx’s use of abstraction, see: uncomfortablescience.org/2011/08/19/beyond-the-exchange-abstraction/)

Mathematics is subject to both verification and falsification. Praxeology is just hand waiving bullshit.

I think Marx addresses this criticism in chapter 3 volume 1 of Kapital

"Hence an object may have a price without having value. The price in that case is imaginary, like certain quantities in mathematics. On the other hand, the imaginary price-form may sometimes conceal either a direct or indirect real value-relation; for instance, the price of uncultivated land, which is without value, because no human labour has been incorporated in it."

One more thing:

An interesting question here is the relevance of Bukharin’s critique of the historical defense of circularity to the charges of infinite regression aimed at Marx’s theory of prices of production. (Coincidentally it was Bohm-Bawerk who first made the charge that Marx’s theory of production price in Vol. 3 of Capital was circular.) The modern retort to the transformation problem, the Temporal Single System Interpretation (TSSI) which I have written about here before, resolves the transformation problem through the temporal succession of production prices from one production period to the next. Does this solution fall prey to Bukharin’s critique of historical solutions to theoretical problems? I think the answer is that we need to look more closely into what exactly is being claimed in each argument. For Subjective value theory the claim is that personal utility judgements cause exchange value and that these are the only factors we need to look at. The fact that existing exchange values determine our subjective preferences renders this theory circular. On the other hand Marx and the TSSI are describing a temporal process whereby the outputs from one production period, both in physical and value terms, become the inputs of the next production period. As Carchedi says of this infinite regression critique: “This critique, in fact, would have to apply to any social phenomenon in as much as it is determined by other phenomena, both past and present. Social sciences then would become and endless quest for the starting point of the inquiry. Fortunately, however, our predicament is not as gloomy as Marx’s critics incautiously present it. The reason is that the choice of starting point depends upon the scope and purpose of our research. If we want to determine the value of B it is perfectly justified to take the value of A as given.” (A being an input into the production process of B).

I think their idea behind anarchy is no state aparatus. But they are happy with all other hierarchies, which I don't get.
Why do AnCaps support wageslavery?

...

blah blah blah contract between equals, except obviously they aren't equal so fuck it who cares, amirite?

It's my fault, comrade I asked him to because I haven't read any Bawerk and I was interested in at least having some grasp on what y'all were bantering about

name dropping is not an argument shitface

CMON PRAX IT UP!!!

pick one

This just proves that AnCap is only for peple who already have wealth and means of production in their private hands.
Why would a poor person support AnCap ideas? I never understood that, nor do they care about explaining it.

so a girl? trans?

honestly

also to clarify further,

use value!=value!=exchange value

each of these are different concepts. While an object may have a use value that does not necessarily mean it has value or exchange value.

...

False consciousness as indoctrinated by bourgeois propaganda. Seriously. It's one thing to make peace with wage labor or to consider a rebellion against it as either futile or too large a task, but another to revel in it and desire more of it.

we're getting close to sick digits here

BASED MARXPOSTER DELIVERS

SIGNIFIED.

thx marxposter. That was a good read.

Because after the fall of >>">">crony capitalism

...

why are people too dumb to admit that "crony capitalism" is just flat out freemarket capitalism. are we too stupid to look at our own histories and depressions/economic collapses to realize what is going on? are we a nation of idiots who un-ironically buy into "trickle down theory"?

I'm not the OG Marxposter, but I had recently already written up a critique of Austrian bourgonomics (which is why it was posted in separate parts rather quickly, because I only had to wait for flood timeout) and it was a better time than ever to post it here.

I recommend reading Bukharin's critique yourself directly here as well (more than mine, honestly, which is basically just a summation put into perspective with some added pieces and footnotes): marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1927/leisure-economics/ch01.htm. Same thing goes for OP, who should really know this famous document since it's basically what put the marginalists out of any credibility for decades to come.

you catched me, i don't speak english mi amigo.

i dont know if im reading marx or lacan anymore

neither calling me a shitface you tit

This is why people don't take you seriously, libertyposter

The risk of failure cannot possibly be greater than the potential profits. This is like porky saying 'well I actually run the risk of losing the right to steal all your work so it's actually perfectly fair for me to steal all your work'. Once his profits are enough to cover the initial investment in capital, what continued justification does he have to exploit labour? At that point he will have overcome the initial risk. Plus, odds are that if he has enough money to buy the MoP it was probably earned through exploitation.

Hell, you could actually make that same argument for slavery. The slaver took the risk in acquiring the slaves, so they owe him their eternal labour. Are you saying slavery isn't exploitative?

I bet you unironically own and wear those che T-shirts.

The labor theory of value is only supposed to apply to commodities. You can stick a price on anything, that's not necessarily representative of its value.

He was right and the rate of profit fell. Read Kilman

haven't kropotkin shown that praxeology is in our side?

I see you didn't respond to any of the cogent criticism levelled at you by

...

sorry didn't mean to hurt your feelings :(

...

If you can't be bothered to read the criticisms made against your position then you as well be shitposting

Yeah, we did

It's not even his position, he hasn't given any position

...

You can never be "free enough" if you think about freedom as the hegemonic ideology tells you its little narrative about it. You can never be sure you bought the right commodities, so you spend hours looking up the newest phones on the net, you can never be sure you did the best to express your super original personality through hoarded items, and so on. Anxiety is generated from never getting 'it;' you see the problem as the solution, and in your hopeless endeavor capital feeds on you, vampire-like.

Among similar lines, the market can not be 'free enough,' regardless what that really means. Private property (prerequisite for a market) and its contradictions are the true key for understanding the limitation of bourgeois "free market" and the limitations of bourgeois "freedom" as such. Instead it comes naturally through ideological production to place these inherent faults on (things viewed as) external elements: the state, the jews, the lizard men.

Since the ruling class controls the media, the means to express and develop their own culture, their art, their ideology, the resources to expand and spread them, it is only natural that we see value in what they value, even if it is against our economic or historical interests. We view the horizon of our possibilities from a virtual mountaintop – virtual, because while there is a real mountain under their feet (wealth, freedom, power, etc.) there is none under ours, yet we are transfixed on our "shared horizon."

Well people started to get angry at not getting their fraction (!) of those things on the horizon of possibilities and their ideological production is working full-time at figuring out why. While looking at what is presented for them, they won't see the real reasons, so for the moment "chemtrails" will suffice.

First they have to look down, feel dizzy, get their minds where their feet are.

plz

60 posts later
ANCAPS

That's obviously Bakunin, the original neckbeard.

marx? really nigga? thats bakunin, even i know that.

cool albert einstein quote bro. just wanted to chime in after reading your posts to say you are so fucking stupid it almost hurts to know people like you exist. pick up a fucking book and read you ignorant shallow faggot

...

monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

not an argument

I'll remind myself to enlarge pictures before being clever.

"The use of the word libertarian to describe a new set of political positions has been traced to the French cognate, libertaire, coined in a letter French libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque wrote to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857."

It may not of been Bakunin and Kropotkin that "created" the term but there is no doubt it was originally a left wing term.

>youtube.com/watch?v=C-E7YQyYHZw

Only applies obviously to

Seems to me NAA is thrown around when you don't like something some user says. That is not what it means.

...

...

You can't. Socialism, which is pretty much subsidizing failure always ends in uncontrollable inflation and collapse. No amount of theory will ever change that reality. 1+1 = 2 just as socialism = failure. See every Socialist regime in history.
Because "true socialism" doesn't work.

That sounds like Capitalism mate, go to any country where the government doesn't interfere with half of the economy.

...

...

kek saved

Yes yes, try and try again destroying nation after nation. It;s surely going to work one of these days! Idiots.

You realize that this effectively means that he wrote whatever the fuck he felt like, said it was a serious theory, and then "applies" whenever reality just happens to fit with his theory for a brief moment right? That entire quote is seriously just an admission the whole thing is baseless bullshit.

Is this bait?

We're not all Stalinists, you mongoloid.

Not yet. The Stalin figure doesn't come along until your special-snowflake brand of Leftist theory fails and people rally behind someone who can get the trains running on time.

How's middle school history class treating you?

Any Socialist can point out numerous instances where that didn't happen.

We're not all Marxist Leninists either, you mongoloid.

Ancap bitch can you just give me one historical example of a capitalist system that did not involve corporatism or crony capitalism and can you explain why mega corporations wouldn't collude in ancapistan?

Given that economies of scale mean the big guy ALWAYS wins

Guys, guys, nobody cares.

Most Socialists aren't Marxists and if that's your main beef with Socialism, then you have no real argument. American education fails again.

Most socialists also like importing cheap migrant labor because their own policies have made hiring citizens too expensive.

AHAHA WTF, that's literally every successful capitalist ever. This has to be bait.

It's not the policies, it's capitalism. Unless you're happy with a nationwide average wage of 2$ a day, don't bitch when social democratic policies are the only thing keeping us from turning into India.

Wasn't it the left that increased wages to be uncompetitve with the third world? Isn't that why we in the first world lost all our jerbs?

If the average wage was 2 bucks a day shit would be much cheaper. Cost of living would be much lower, like ti was in the old days. Why don't you guys know what Inflation is or how it works?

The Left increased wages because employers were paying their workers piss-all at every turn. Had employers accounted for inflation and productivity, the average wage would be over 20$ an hour. The reason we're losing jobs is because of automation and even then, that's only a bad thing because we live under Capitalism. The problem isn't job growth, the problem is that we privatize all production to Porky and his friends, leaving the workers to go fuck themselves.

Mate, if you seriously think this, go to India, go to Mexico. The costs of living is lower yes, but the wages are shit and there's no safety net.

In the good old days, employers had to compete for labor by increasing wages, we don't live on that planet anymore, we now have a infinite labor market with automation.

Kek, never thought the book to be this bad(but then again, I never read it).
I thought it was like "How the Steel was tempered" for ancraps, but apparently it's not.

You can corallate that picture with the US going off the gold standard and printing free money. Raising the minimum wage will only increase inflation, but not adddress the root cause, which is that the US dollar is not backed by any real wealth.

Sounds good. I could set up shop anywhere and sell whatever I wanted and not need a permit. Food and rent would be cheaper. All I'd need is a good idea for my business. Sounds alright tbh.

ahaha, and your wages would be dog shit.

Let's see how much you make when Pajeet only has 2$ in his bank account.

Right, you don't care about the millions of people who have to live like dogs to prop up capitalism in India. Subhuman scum, you are.

A gold standard would not prevent employers from paying their workers piss-all

And by the way, the success rate of businesses are absolute shit in America, imagine how lucky you'll be in India when literally everyone has no money.

Assuming I'm starting my own business, which is what I said, I'd earn whatever I could.
Location location location. I would obviously sell my wares to the middle class, which btw does exist in India you ignorant buffoon.
That's a lot of implication. If my company was successful maybe I'd hire a pajeet to sell wars on a different street. I'd of course want to pay him a fair wage so he continues working for me and without ripping me off stealing my product.

But their wages would be worth more than they are now because the dollar would be stronger.

There's like a billion dudes in India and they seem to be just fiiiiine. Im sure if I went there (with a bit of investment capital) I'd be just fine too.

Right, which would be piss. You think the food vendors there live like kings? No, they're barely above the workers.

And business there is monopolized by corporations in the hands of a few wealthy people. There's virtually no market for ideologues like you.

No you wouldn't, you could just hire someone else who would take a lower wage and do the same work. As for stealing your product, you have the police to take care of that.

That doesn't mean capitalists are required to continuously raise wages. Once the market raises prices all over again to take advantage of this, we're back to square 1. A gold standard would not prevent inflation.

Dear lord, you're stupid. You're literally lying about a 2nd world country in order to make excuses for your shitty system.

aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/millions-indian-workers-strike-wages-160902131706206.html

It isn't unusual to see dead bodies flowing down the river and the conditions are abysmal compared to Welfare states like the Nordix countries and Germany. A "fair wage" doesn't exist, a wage is exploitation. Even when money was backed by gold employers still treated their employees like garbage. It makes no difference and doesn't solve the internal contradictions of capitalism like the TRPF.

What? We aren't talking about inflation, we're talking about the disparity in income between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Back when we used the gold standard children were working 20 hour days sometimes with only an hour break.

Can't we fight both Capitalism and Crony Capitalism?
archive.is/hqVOP

Because unless you're making as much as the richest guy it's not enough, right? Your envy of success is showing.
What do you think practical socialism is but a government monopoly on industry? At least in a place like India with no regulation I could compete with the big guys.

Maybe, that's competition, and that will drive my cost down while aiding whatever pajeet will work for the lowest wage! Not like he has any other means of earning pay. I'm still doing him a favor. I don't /have/ to hire anyone, keep in mind.

Why would they if they could profit from a products real value? Would there be need for artificial scarcity if you didn't have to pay people 20 dollars an hour to turn screws?

Says the delusional man.

That's their culture. I don't judge! I just won't go for a swim!

If you're want most people to make piss-all, why would I settle for that?

Nope, those same monopolies have billions at their disposal to out-compete and destroy you. You would have a harder time than in the US or in Sweden, where the workers actually have money to put risk investment into your business.

All right, so you literally don't care about workers then, you just feed yourself this delusion to pay workers piss-all.

Thanks to Capitalism. Glad we agree that it's shitty for normal people.

Because they easily can profit from raising the price even further?? There's never any need for artificial scarcity, that's the point. It only exists to make Capitalists as much green as possible.

You're trash at debating.

I;m drunk and think you're a joke

" You would have a harder time than in the US or in Sweden"

Mean to say you would have an easier time.

You're defending a 2nd world country.

Mix some bleach with that alcohol.

What's the problem? Not third world enough for you? Add more Leftism. It;ll be a hellhole in less than 2 years.

No it's shit living conditions.
He was just pointing out that you would be making less than if you set up shop in the US or pretty much any other developed nation.
But nice projecting about "envying success"(lol)
You can be in favour of central planning but that central planning can be achieved by worker councils communication with each other within the government without a supreme power. But why don't you respond to the asinine remarks you made about people in India "being fine" when millions protest because they're living in literal filth. Libertarians are in no position to be calling others delusional. Why don't you critique Marxhead's own critique of Austrian economics instead of spouting empirically wrong drivel, like India's capitalism actually providing the people there adequate living standards.

The libertarian argument is based around property but property is a social construct based around the state's granting of property rights. I lean towards libertarian socialism but the key is to understanding how property plays into everything.

Without the state's organized 'legitimate use of violence', there is no property that is actually recognized. Otherwise you can claim that everything is your property - unless someone else already owns it. But again, that's based on someone saying they own the land and everyone else acknowledging it.

Libertarian capitalism is based on the notion of mutual aid, but does not take into account relative disparity in how aiding the exchange may be. A man dying of cancer who gets a nickel for eating some freak's cum benefits, but his gain is far less than the freak's and does not seriously help him as much. Socialism's goal is to allow a more communal distribution that takes into account needs in mutual exchange.

Hey guys, I made some OC

Try taking my property faggot. I dare you

Top kek saved

LMAOOOOO, lolberts actin tough XDDDDDDDD

...

It's my property faggot stop being on it you're violating the NAP

your pic related is running over the wrong kind of anarchist, son

that's why I deleted it

This is a reading list for OP

...

It isn't so much "fuck poor people" as it is acceptance that poor people are a result of humans outbreeding the capacity that their civilization is able to provide for.

He wouldn't read marxposter's shit, what makes you think he'll go through your reading list?

wew lad, have you even seen our "Garl Marx :DDD" banner?

...

libertarianism will reduce overpopulation because of famines, criminality and the growth in the market of human flesh.

libertarianism is flawless

You raise good points. Just what I'd expect from a man who's flag represents a country that wasn't suckered into the globalist IMF's monetary pyramid scheme.

Mondragon is still doing fine fam.

Gotta say I'm impressed. Einstein knew his shit.

fuggen gegged

discussed in recent [email protected]/* */:
youtube.com/watch?v=O3_LongDRPI

wots brong bid it? :—DDDD

Go ahead and prove government is necessary in absolute terms.

Bam, I just condensed your fucking novel. No need to thank me.

...

That is correct and extremely self-serving, it's argueing from tautology

The workers that use it own it actually. And if the workers are already on it, all we need to do is stop you trying to appropriate worker property.

Duh. It's not your property.

Care to give an example?

The point is, without a state to protect private property, you'll need to form private institutions that do its job of policing dissenters of it instead. Ultimately, this means the recreation of a state-like apparatus that attempts to guarantee a universalized recognition _and_ defense of private property as exclusive to the private proprietors. A cursory look at history and the birthing of the first states actually sees the creation of the state superseding the institution of private property, in fact entirely to guarantee its legitimacy, not the other way around. Post-mercantilism, after the first feudal monarchies were abolished and the capitalist mode of production was initiated with private proprietors, there were no states yet, just private militias purchased and managed by proprietors. This didn't suffice against dissenters of the wage system (which mandates private ownership), so states were created and the first public police forces were instated to maintain public order for the capitalist mode of production. It is only much later, during the early 20th century, that we see labour movements effectively managing to get the state on their side to balance out the slave-like demands of the proprietors, with things such as basic incomes, worker's rights, etc.

libcom.org/history/origins-police-david-whitehouse

neo-classical economics and anarcho-capitalism is all based on the premise of methodological individualism which is obviously false.

/thread

So workers are free of risk? I dont see how that could be true. When the company goes down the workers go down with it. Also we have a general rise of risk minimising structures in capitalism where no owner is at risk personally when a company goes down, or his investments are lost. Exactly these structures made capitalism possible in the first case.

demonstrations are the verifications, and counter-arguments are the falsifications. duh.

This. In mathematics you verify propositions by proving them, you falsify them by showing they are absurd. So if praxeology is subject to neither verification nor falsification, then it can take a hike; it's not science.

but it wasn't capitalism it was corporatism

op doesn't know how to read

Aynclaps have to walk the plank, no more needs to be said about them, fucking fascists pieces of shit.

Fucking saved.

I'm saying he doesn't appear to understand the terms being used. This is not necessarily an argument against the idea itself he was expressing, just that in this context, especially as an attempted criticism of Marxism, it doesn't make sense.

I think you mean "my workers' products"

Can anyone destroy this one for me:

But now we have private ownership of means of production again.
Which bit is not allowed under socialism?
Is it rent? but it seems a bit weird to force people to either not buy or buy outright, and not allow rent.

capital market should be banned.

Rent is charging for something you're not using while keeping ownership of it. It's stupid.

I agree, but firstly whats wrong with entering into this arrangement consensually, secondly whats to stop people doing it?

to me its unrealistic to get rid of market until we are post-scarcity. Not that I can really defend this position.

Under Marxism, private property is not a thing so much as it is a form of relationship between labour and capital. Private property is not so much a kind of physical object so much as it is the act of using a claim to property to exploit the labour of someone else.

Private property is the means by which labour is alienated - ie, separated from its product.

Once you start thinking of it as a relationship and not a physical thing, everything should become clear.

ty for pdf

Industrial revolution proved you wrong. Peasants made fortune by selling products cheaper. Workers increased in quality of life (yes increased. Compare life expectancy before and after IR, not today/right after IR). Private property of means of production is what saved humanity from feudalism. It gave more social mobility to the people than any socialist regime ever dreamt of.

LMBO

Life expectancy doesn't mean much when you're all drugged up on fucking coffee, not getting enough sleep and making less money than you did on your farm, only your instability factor of crop failure has been replaced with unemployment. Ask Foxconn employees from the countryside- the majority want to go back.

...

What's this originally from? It's pretty good