I was just finishing a reading session of das Kapital and then it came to me, did Marx fuck Engels...

Don't lie, you're an ancap. You literally never think.

I requires thought to believe in private property, heritage rights and supplying the national market
it requires being a nigger to take stuff from successful people

But most capitalists are white.

It might surprise you to find out, but the vast majority of slash fiction is produced by and for females.

nope
fortune 500 is 50% jewish because of government interventionism that lets them get away with not paying taxes and leaving small businesses to carry their weight

I wasn't talking about "thought", I was talking about thought.

really made me think

You wish.

Jews are white, though. This is like one of those situations where white people are so racist that they have to invent new categories so that they can be racist against other white people.

Anyway, even if small businesses also didn't have to pay taxes, big businesses would still be able to outcompete them and eventually just eat them all whole because of the advantages they have from what they've already accumulated so far. It also wouldn't solve the problem that as different firms compete for greater profits, they will necessarily try and put less and less money into labour, thus decreasing demand and creating a crisis of profitability.

🍀🍀🍀 🍀🍀🍀
don't think so lad
jews have an african admixture from breeding with nubians while being enslaved in egypt

Jews were never enslaved in Egypt. That's just a Jewish fairytale that actually has absolutely no support in the archaeological record.

Now please address my other point, sassanach. How is removing the state going to solve the problem of falling rates of profit?

We're coming for your toothbrush you reactionary piece of shit.

I don't believe in anarchy, I believe in a minimal government - a minarchy
border, police and army - no NEETbux or welfare

most antifa(ggots) I've met really need one

So answer my question. How is your minimal state supposed to solve this problem?

yo, buddy, you forgot to put a swastika onto your flag.

the jewish problem?

...

And slavs are human.

Funny how that stele doesn't say anything about Egypt having Israelite slaves. I'm not even anti-semitic, in fact I'm a fucking Jew myself. I'm saying that outside of religious text, there is no proofs.

No, the one described here

there are assloads of them in smellbourne
can't wait to move from this JUST of a state

no, they wouldn't
regional companies have advantages over multiregional ones because they pay less for transport, per cost
specialized companies have an advantage over ones reaching more industries because of the more indicative feedback in upper management in that specific industry
big businesses in the US only are advantages because they can afford lawyers who will allow them to not pay any taxes - i.e. from government intervention
minimal government removes the middleman

That's retarded, but I was referring to the other part. The part about the rates of profit.

Small businesses also wouldn't have any advantage in infrastructure just because they're small. Big businesses are advantaged because they have more money.

If a small business is able to put so and so much capital into setting up a supply line, distribution, whatever, a big company would be able to do the same thing locally for probably the same price. The only difference would be the name on the deed. They would also have the opportunity of being able to take profits from their other divisions and put them into cornering John Q. Publick's small business by being able to undercut him to seize his market share and absorbing the loss through their other operations. In this sense, the big business has a distinct advantage.

But anyway, please answer my point on labour, demand and rates of profit.

Ja, kiddo, because this is how it works and there are no jewish antisemites and no jews selling books to antisemites. yeah. why would they exist?
It also doesn't say a bear shits in the woods.

Yeah, you must encounter a lot of them at the centrelink office.

big businesses are less efficient
infrastructure costs money, often out of reach of the business owner
the only actual advantage big businesses have is hiring tax attorneys to pay 0% tax, which is their actual advantage over small businesses
if all tax is reduced, the gap is reduced between big and small business

ok

[citation needed]

Also address my point already:

it's called booms and recessions which basically weeds out of the failed companies from the economy

whatevs. still doesnt make u white.

How do you explain the fact that outside of the periodic recoveries (which in both the recent recession and the Great Depression were caused entirely by government stimulus) this problem has only been getting worse in the long run?

Why do we need massive recessions where nobody buys anything to weed out failures when firms go extinct all the time even in boom periods? How is the recession supposed to end without the government giving ordinary workers free money to buy things and create demand?

not laissez-faire
keynesians are the niggers of capitalism; they're artificially inflating bubbles to let schlomo pick up the scraps

Yes, good, great job! Government stimulus isn't laissez-faire. Way to go!

Now tell me, how are you supposed to come out of a crisis of profitability without any sort of stimulus?

recession
companies go bankrupt, new opportunities

No, the recession is the crisis. It's when nobody has money to buy things so nobody is able to sell things so nobody is able to pay workers who buy things. How does the free market solve this situation?

companies with the better management survive
the other companies stocks lower; ownership is changed

But there's still no workers that have money to buy products and stimulate economic growth because it was all accumulated by capitalists through the process of making profit.

How do you solve that without giving money away?

quantify your claims; they're intangible and useless

Nobody has money to buy things.

This happened because firms compete to make the biggest profit.

To do this they try and cut costs by automating and paying workers less.

When less workers are working and when the ones who have jobs are paid less, nobody has money, thus demand drops.

Demand dropping causes profits to drop, which exacerbates the situation and amplifies the trouble. We can see this happening today, and it will probably get much worse fairly soon.

How is the free market supposed to solve this?

if the government has money for stimulus than it means that is has too much money, which means that too few companies were able to establish themselves because of too high taxes, which suppresses economic activity
also, automation is a spook, to put it in your terms

A spook is an abstract concept with no physical presence that people put ahead and above of their own interests. Automation is the process of replacing paid, living human labour with machines, meaning that the people who were doing the machine's job are now unable to buy things and stimulate economic activity. How are these two things even remotely similar?

And in this situation we haven't assumed that there is a government. This assuming a free market, in fact. So how is the free market supposed to solve this problem?

You should probably just kill yourself at this point.

Keynes is (was) the greatest and most insightful economist we've had until now. You're a fucking retard and should never make a post here again.

>>>/gulag/

This thinking thing didn't turn out so well for ya m8

...

...

that is some tankie logic right there

You know that quote is him using irony to make a point, right?

that is some neo-Luddism logic right there.

so were government policies ironic this entire time?

No, dumbass, neo-luddism would be arguing that the machines need to be destroyed. This is just pointing out the reality of capitalism - that only the bourgeoisie being able to benefit from labour-saving machinery causes problems for all of society, bourgies included.

are you telling me I am "unable to buy things and stimulate economic activity" with my contract work with my array of labour-saving machines? then, i suggest rewriting your previous statement.

how many pyramids did he build m8?

If your job was eliminated due to your being replaced with a robot, then yes, you would be unable to buy things and stimulate economic activity as you would have no job.

When the general trend of capitalistic competition encourages employers to do this by investing in automation and cutting back on labour costs, demand naturally drops because less people are employed and those that are employed have less money. When demand drops, companies fail to make a profit because nobody is buying their product and everybody suffers. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

On the other hand, if the benefit of automation were to be socialized, then investment in automation would benefit everyone instead of hurting everyone's interests.

Have you absolutely no exposure to leftist thought before now? These are pretty basic concepts. Furthermore, you're not a bourgie, since you have to sell your labour to survive. Having tools is not what's bad, it's when the bourgies monopolize tools and use them as a tool of accumulation.

so other jobs don't exist?

it kind of already is with open source templates for 3-d printing. just waiting on the prices to go down for the printers

You're the kind of simple minded pleb that gets upset when someone says they should relocate Israel to America, like you think it's actually feasible.

Other jobs are also automated youdumb cappie cuck

This is part of a general trend in capitalist industry. It's not even some hypothetical theoretical stuff at this point, you can see it happening in pretty much every modern economy. The thing is that automating/cutting labour actually gives you a competitive edge under capitalism, so everyone will end up doing it eventually, because the employer who decides not to replace his workers will robots will lose market share to the one who does, as his competitor will be able to use his robots to produce a greater quantity of cheaper goods.

This is one of the internal contradictions of capitalism that Marx spoke about - that increasing efficiency in a given firm actually ends up hurting all firms in the long run. Obviously, it's not going to happen evenly and at the same time everywhere, but it's a clear observable trend in industry.

That's why you saw the push to move to credit in America in recent years - as a means of keeping the system going for a little longer by allowing people to spend using debt on what they couldn't otherwise afford, as a means of stimulating the economy. Clever move, but it can't last. Still, the same thing is happening in China now, where they're trying to make Chinese consumers make use of credit cards like Westerners do because otherwise there's not enough domestic demand to keep up the current level of production.

Furthermore, 3D printers becoming widespread won't solve any of these problems. You can't 3D print computers, cars, potato chips or tomatoes - the sorts of things that we need to rely on large scale industry to acquire. 3D printers are a slightly less labour-intensive version of going into the woods and picking up some wood to carve with your pocket knife. Nice if you can do it, but it won't solve the problem that nobody has any money to buy your shitty carvings with, and even if everyone could make their own shitty carvings, people need things like guns and food that can't be carved from wood with pocket knives.

so we should see an increasing trend in unemployment

whqt about jobs that cannot be automated? as products from automated labour become cheaper, people would have more demand for specialty products/services that require human intellect.

It doesnt matter if there is a demand for speciality products

At much you will see a small boom in that sector for a couple of years, which will burst once you figure out how to automate most of it

The problem is that those are a minority of all jobs. Yes, goods would be very cheap for those people, but you can't really sustain an economy on lawyers and middle managers.

I think you're also thinking about demand in the wrong way, here. I'm not using it in the vernacular sense, but in the specific economic sense: It's not necessarily that people don't want commodities, it's that they can't pay for them. In this case, a drop off in demand is caused by a drop off in employment and pay. With jobs being replaced, hours being cut and wages being dropped, working people have less money and they buy less shit. Nobody buying shit = no demand, in economic terms. That's one of capitalism's biggest problems, and one of the things Keynes tried to overcome through tax and spend redistribution, though obviously we leftists generally don't believe in that.

how do you automate products and services that require human intellect short of AI?

then why would capitalist automate if there is no demand for the very products they create?

There is demand, at first. But as more people automate, demand drops. Like I mentioned earlier, it's completely in the capitalist's short term interest to do this because it grants him a competitive edge (and if he doesn't, he goes out of business). In the long run, though, it hurts everyone. Choice doesn't really factor into it, it's something built into the system. If you don't cut costs your firm literally cannot survive in most cases.

Again, this isn't something that happens overnight, it's something that you see emerging gradually over many years resulting from the actions of a great deal of firms all over the globe. We had some pretty creative interventions to deal with this problem and a lot of stimulus meant to keep the capitalist system alive, but we're reaching a point where it looks like the people in charge just straight ran out of ideas, which is pretty fucking scary.

One of the ways to deal with this is by destroying machinery and blowing shit up in addition to the state acting as a purchaser using taxes in order to create artificial demand. The easiest way to do this is through war, which is why the shit the elites are pulling with Russia right now is so unnerving. And if the system seems like it's on the verge of collapse, there's really no telling what the people in power will do to keep their positions of wealth and influence. It's kind of a shitty time to be alive, but at least we have anime and there's no bubonic plague around.

Because all commodity production have to obey to the production forces theory (object of labour, subject of labour, labour)

As you can improve tools (subject) you can improve production

Everything that requires human intellectcan be done by machines + a superviser

Anyway, I'm going to sleep now, if you got any more questions I'll try and pop back in when I wake up. For now, I'd watch this video: youtube.com/watch?v=6P97r9Ci5Kg

It's Papa Wolff giving the rundown to some opinionated alt chick. It's a pretty decent basic rundown of how this stuff fundamentally works, though obviously the specifics are a bit more convoluted and complicated.

THE SASSANACH KNOW!

...

I didn't shitpost. I'm genuinely interested whether there is anything to it or not. You people are kinda ruining my day.

Marx did send Engels a bunch of books on anal sex.

Clearly he was dtf but Engels was too busy writing disparaging articles about nationalists to reciprocate.

Unrequited love truly is the purest love.

No he is right. There is no source outside Judaism for anything resembling jewish culture or history up until the Babylonian captivity. Essentially a group from Palestine got together when in captivity, took aspects of Babylonian tradition (hence Talmud) and rebranded it their own, then using the mythos they built around themselves in captivity they seized control when they got home after their release. There was no coherent 'jew' before the Babylonian captivity.

Dialetics m8