An Objectivist's Questions

[Goldensilence33]

Hello.

I am interested in rational debate, and I find myself not being capable of understanding Communism, so I figured the best way to start would be to post some questions of mine and see what results I get.

I will be using exerpts from Marx's Kapital for Beginners (vb/marx-39-s-t41211/index. html)

1) "Only in capitalist society does exchangeability become an established feature of the labour product. Only in capitalist society, thus, does the product lead a double life – as a value and a use-value."

In a free market, does the so-called "use-value" not dictate the capitalistic "value"?

2) "Take a loaf of bread, for example. Sitting in a supermarket, its usefulness lies completely dormant. Though perfectly edible, it must prove its exchange-value before it can be eaten. If no one buys it, the bread will rot on the shelf – even though people will starve. The same is true for every commodity: NO SALE, NO USE. This is a principle of private property. Commodities are not made to be given away. Capitalists do not share with workers."

Why do you feel that the loaf of bread belongs to the people that will starve? What gives them the right to the product of my labor? Why should I slave to feed those that will not feed themselves?

3)"The proletarian finds her or himself abjectly dependent on the capitalist, for ‘employment’, for ‘a chance to make a living’, for access to means of production. Though the proletarian does all productive labour, the capitalist alone controls production – simply by owning the means of production, which allows him to buy and thus own labour-power as well."

If the worker is so productive, why can't the worker start their own venture? Save up money, turn it into capital, enjoy his/her productivity and live comfortably? If not save, then get a loan?

4)"the capitalist alone controls production – simply by owning the means of production..."

How did he get these means of production? In rare cases, it was inherited. In others, by working their way up, taking risks that others don't want to take (because they don't see the need, they feel that they "deserve" it). In others, they try, and fail, and try, and fail, until they succeed. Why is this immoral? I don't understand.

To close, I leave you this link that should clarify a lot: gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_02/fekete070102.html

Please take these questions seriously, I really don't understand the communist position.

Respectfully,
Goldsilence33

[Tim Cornelis]

1) What do you mean by "capitalistic value"?

2) Marx' labour theory of value is descriptive, it's a positive analysis of capitalism, not a normative discourse of what ought to be. The example that bread will rot on the shelf and not be fed to the hungry is to explain/emphasize how exchange value and use value relate in the capitalist system. It is not an argument that "the bread should go to those who need it", although it can be used as such. In any case, most socialists believe the worker has the right to the proceeds of his labour. You, as an Objectivist, seem to also agree with the "to each according to his contribution" but also believe in marginal productivity which supposedly justifies the given income of any person for whatever he may do.

3) That's a fallacious argument. You completely missed the point. Even if one worker is the most productive worker in the world but gets paid 1 cent per year he cannot start his own bushiness. The point Marxist economics is trying to make is that the worker does not receive the full product of his labour, the wages the worker receives is lower than the value he creates (what is dubbed exploitation). Thus, the point being: the workers engaged in productive activity, yet the capitalist reaps the benefits (i.e. exploitation according to Marxist economics).

4) This is what Ayn Rand calls context dropping. Indeed, in theory everyone can buy means of production. But look at the underlying implications, private ownership implies the means of life are owned, monopolized if you will, by a privileged minority and the vast vast majority of people are excluded from access to these means compelling them to sell their labour. Everoyne has the right to liberty and life but private ownership precludes these rights and makes them privileges. Sure, one has the right to liberty if you have enough money to buy your own business so you are no longer a subject to your boss.

[Octavian]

Hello.

I am interested in rational debate, and I find myself not being capable of understanding Communism, so I figured the best way to start would be to post some questions of mine and see what results I get.

I will be using exerpts from Marx's Kapital for Beginners (vb/marx-39-s-t41211/index. html)

1) "Only in capitalist society does exchangeability become an established feature of the labour product. Only in capitalist society, thus, does the product lead a double life – as a value and a use-value."

In a free market, does the so-called "use-value" not dictate the capitalistic "value"?

2) "Take a loaf of bread, for example. Sitting in a supermarket, its usefulness lies completely dormant. Though perfectly edible, it must prove its exchange-value before it can be eaten. If no one buys it, the bread will rot on the shelf – even though people will starve. The same is true for every commodity: NO SALE, NO USE. This is a principle of private property. Commodities are not made to be given away. Capitalists do not share with workers."

Why do you feel that the loaf of bread belongs to the people that will starve? What gives them the right to the product of my labor? Why should I slave to feed those that will not feed themselves?

3)"The proletarian finds her or himself abjectly dependent on the capitalist, for ‘employment’, for ‘a chance to make a living’, for access to means of production. Though the proletarian does all productive labour, the capitalist alone controls production – simply by owning the means of production, which allows him to buy and thus own labour-power as well."

If the worker is so productive, why can't the worker start their own venture? Save up money, turn it into capital, enjoy his/her productivity and live comfortably? If not save, then get a loan?

4)"the capitalist alone controls production – simply by owning the means of production..."

How did he get these means of production? In rare cases, it was inherited. In others, by working their way up, taking risks that others don't want to take (because they don't see the need, they feel that they "deserve" it). In others, they try, and fail, and try, and fail, until they succeed. Why is this immoral? I don't understand.

To close, I leave you this link that should clarify a lot: gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_02/fekete070102.html

Please take these questions seriously, I really don't understand the communist position.

Respectfully,
Goldsilence33

1) Not necessarily. You could have something like a watch where one that's gold plated and one that's plastic have the same use value but not the same value.

2) People ate bread before capitalism there for the use value is already known. The bread belongs to the people who produced not those that own the grain farm and mill. We don't advocate anyone slaving to feed others.

3) In Marx's time the capitalist ensures that the worker only receives enough to survive and reproduce. In our time this is prevalent in the eastern world but not so much in the west though it still happens and those that climb to the top are few.

4) Most get it through inheritances and simple opportunism. For example say you have the late 1800's early 1900's. In this time for example say you were born into a middle class family and had a little wealth. If this was right before ciggrete manufacturing and you got the idea for starting a cigarettes factory. You could technically take over the market and own a large monopoly from there on out for producing cigarettes.

Also understand that when you read Marx you are reading something that was written over a hundred years ago. Not all of it still correlates to today but a lot does.

[JustMovement]

Hello Goldensilence33, I hope that people engage with you in a civilised way, unfortunately too many times people are quite rude to other people interested in learning more, even if on the other side of the political spectrum. It is easier to preach to the quire.

As for your first question, I think the point there that Marx is trying to make is that in capitalism there is a separation between the use-value, or its utility (which is determined subjectively), and its value which is expressed as the price and is determined throughout society through supply and demand. I could be wrong on this point and I will admit that my grasp of value theory is still quite poor. Also value does not necessarily determine the exact price but it is the benchmark around which price fluctuates. Perhaps a more experienced user can correct me if I am wrong.

As to the second question. Marxism, unlike objectivism, is not a moral theory. There is no abstract right to bread. What it boils down to, according to Marx, is that there is an antagonism between those who produce and earn a wage, known as the working class or the proletariat, and those who own the means through which goods and services are produced.

Third question. The worker is as productive as the capitalist can make him of course, because the capitalist makes a profit based on how productive his workers are. However productivity and wages are not related. In fact it is in the capitalists interest to pay workers as little as possible and have them produce as much as they can! Again this is not a moral argument about the capitalist being "evil" but it is how capitalism ad competition work. The worker generally earns a subsistence wage, which now a days admittedly is not as bad as it was in the 19th C., when it was literally not enough to feed a family, but it not generally enough to start a business. Especially because the odds are firmly stacked for those who already have a lot of money, can employ economies of scale, marketing, lobbying in government, have business connections from their pals in private schools and so on. Of course you do have "self-made" men but they are by and large the exception and again do not change Marxs fundamental critique.

fourth question. Again, it is not an argument about morality, it is an argument about the antagonism between those who own the machines with which we produce things and those who work those machines. Of course some capitalists work in the companies they own and produce value through their management (but alot do not think of shareholders) but the money they get is not mainly from the value they add but from their position of gaining from the work of the people they employee.

Hope I have been clear, if you have more questions feel free to ask.

[JustMovement]

quick correction: value is not determined through supply and demand, but price is. Value is determined through the socially necessary labour time if I am not mistaken. I always find this bit really tricky.

[RED DAVE]

Hello.Hi.


1) "Only in capitalist society does exchangeability become an established feature of the labour product. Only in capitalist society, thus, does the product lead a double life – as a value and a use-value."
In a free marketRemember, there is no free market. All markets are regulated.


does the so-called "use-value" not dictate the capitalistic "value"?Take for example a diamond ring. As a use-value it really ain't worth much. However, as an exchange value, an object of the capitalist system of commodity production, it's worth a lot. Utility, in any common sense use of the word, is not related to value.


2) "Take a loaf of bread, for example. Sitting in a supermarket, its usefulness lies completely dormant. Though perfectly edible, it must prove its exchange-value before it can be eaten. If no one buys it, the bread will rot on the shelf – even though people will starve. The same is true for every commodity: NO SALE, NO USE. This is a principle of private property. Commodities are not made to be given away. Capitalists do not share with workers."
Why do you feel that the loaf of bread belongs to the people that will starve?A better question is: Why do you feel that starving people should be deprived of bread?


What gives them the right to the product of my labor?A better question is: What gives the capitalist who employs me the right to the product of my labor beyond a recoupment of his investment and enough for a decent life?


Why should I slave to feed those that will not feed themselves?Let's start with "cannot feed themselves"? Would you agree that children, the sick and elderly should be provided for? (One of the theoreticians of libertarianism, Murray Rothbard, held that under libertarian theory it was okay for parents to let children starve to death.)

How about the unemployed: people who've been thrown out of work due to the failures of capitalism. Should they be provided for?


3)"The proletarian finds her or himself abjectly dependent on the capitalist, for ‘employment’, for ‘a chance to make a living’, for access to means of production. Though the proletarian does all productive labour, the capitalist alone controls production – simply by owning the means of production, which allows him to buy and thus own labour-power as well."
If the worker is so productive, why can't the worker start their own venture? Save up money, turn it into capital, enjoy his/her productivity and live comfortably? If not save, then get a loan?First of all, most people don't want to run businesses; they want to do something else. Second of all, huge numbers of businesses, especially small ones, go under every year.

But finally, where does the value created by a business, large or small, ultimately come from: from labor. Under capitalism, the capitalist "steals" the value someone else created for their own benefit.


4)"the capitalist alone controls production – simply by owning the means of production..."
How did he get these means of production? In rare cases, it was inherited.So that's illegit.


In others, by working their way up, taking risks that others don't want to take (because they don't see the need, they feel that they "deserve" it).In other words, first by winning an economic crapshoot with other people's money.


In others, they try, and fail, and try, and fail, until they succeed. Why is this immoral? I don't understand.Obviously you don't understand. A capitalist is, from one point of view, an organizer of other people's labor. They get to control that labor. Have you ever noticed, oh lover of liberty, that the root organization of capitalism is dictatorship?

Corporations are dictatorships. You can: inherit a dictatorship; kiss ass and fuck other people over in a dictatorship until, maybe, you become a dictator; leave one dictatorship and go to another; start your own dictatorship; live on welfare (unless the Right has gutted it; starve. Those are the capitalist options. That's your morality.


To close, I leave you this link that should clarify a lot: gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_02/fekete070102.htmlI wouldn't take Ayn Rand too seriously. No serious student of philosophy, economics or politics considers her worth shit. And her books are okay so long if you're about 17. If you want to debate her nonsense, make sure you like getting your intellectual nose bloodied. And, of course, you know that the great Rand, in her old age, went on Medicare.

RED DAVE

[ZombieRothbard]

Objectivist eh? You should try Rothbard instead.

[Sensible Socialist]

Objectivist eh? You should try Rothbard instead.
That's like telling a meth addict to use crack.

[#FF0000]

That's like telling a meth addict to use crack.

You're my favorite.

Continue on, btw. Good responses so far.

[RED DAVE]

Objectivist eh? You should try Rothbard instead.Do you mean the asshole who said that parents should have the right to starve their children to death? That guy?

RED DAVE

[ZombieRothbard]

Do you mean the asshole who said that parents should have the right to starve their children to death? That guy?

RED DAVE

He said a parent should not be coerced to feed a baby for example, which is pretty much the idea that violence is wrong. The market would of course not allow for babies to starve though. If a parent does not obtain an abortion and manages to have an unwanted child, they could always sell it on the market to the highest bidder, ensuring it enters a wealthy home.

He also supported child liberation rights, something I agree quite strongly with, where a child of abusive parents could have the right to emancipate himself from their home and go live anywhere he wanted if he so chose.

[Rafiq]

That's fucking disgusting. I wouldn't want to live in a world where you can 'sell' babies, much less human beings.

I say the abolishment of child slavery is vital.

His views on Child Liberation rights are bullshit, he wants children to be able to work in sweatshops and such, with minimum wage.

Real child liberation involves the abolishment of the family in it's current form.

I imagine under socialism, several different homes would be built as Children's collectives, where children can live together in groups, at schools. Kind of like board school.

[Sensible Socialist]

He said a parent should not be coerced to feed a baby for example, which is pretty much the idea that violence is wrong. The market would of course not allow for babies to starve though
Just like the market doesn't allow people to starve now. Oh wait....

[Desperado]

He said a parent should not be coerced to feed a baby for example, which is pretty much the idea that violence is wrong.

What makes not feeding a baby morally distinguishable to what you/Rothbard define as violence?

[RED DAVE]

He said a parent should not be coerced to feed a baby for example, which is pretty much the idea that violence is wrong. The market would of course not allow for babies to starve though. If a parent does not obtain an abortion and manages to have an unwanted child, they could always sell it on the market to the highest bidder, ensuring it enters a wealthy home.Aside from this placing the relations between children and parents on an economic and not a loving basis, it also permits the parent, should they desire, to let the child starve to death.


He also supported child liberation rights, something I agree quite strongly with, where a child of abusive parents could have the right to emancipate himself from their home and go live anywhere he wanted if he so chose.And he also believed that parents had the right to starve a child to death.


Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.(emph added)

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

Marx said that the bourgeoisie tended to reduce all bonds to the bonds of class payment. But this is ridiculous.

RED DAVE

[L.A.P.]

Holy shit, I can not believe what I am reading.


He said a parent should not be coerced to feed a baby for example, which is pretty much the idea that violence is wrong.

"Violence is wrong, therefore taking care of your children is oppression." Excuse me if I'm not seeing the logical connection here.


The market would of course not allow for babies to starve though

:blink:


If a parent does not obtain an abortion and manages to have an unwanted child, they could always sell it on the market to the highest bidder, ensuring it enters a wealthy home.

You're so inconsistent. You want a society where everyone is driven by profit and yet at the same time you think the highest bidder of a child is going to be a benevolent wealthy family and not some human trafficker. How is the 'magic' of the market going to stop that?


He also supported child liberation rights, something I agree quite strongly with, where a child of abusive parents could have the right to emancipate himself from their home and go live anywhere he wanted if he so chose.

Too bad children are financially dependent on their parents because of what capitalism has done to the family unit.

[Metacomet]

Selling babies? At a auction block? Isn't that sex slavery just waiting to happen.



Sick. Absolutely sick.

[Thirsty Crow]

1) "Only in capitalist society does exchangeability become an established feature of the labour product. Only in capitalist society, thus, does the product lead a double life – as a value and a use-value."

In a free market, does the so-called "use-value" not dictate the capitalistic "value"?No, use value does not dictate exchange value, or simply value, since the former is the prerequisite for consumption, or in other words, a capitalist must put people to work in order to produce something which will be used in one way or another (capitalist production is emminently production for exchange, for sale, and not production for immediate satisfaction of human needs)


2) "Take a loaf of bread, for example. Sitting in a supermarket, its usefulness lies completely dormant. Though perfectly edible, it must prove its exchange-value before it can be eaten. If no one buys it, the bread will rot on the shelf – even though people will starve. The same is true for every commodity: NO SALE, NO USE. This is a principle of private property. Commodities are not made to be given away. Capitalists do not share with workers."

Why do you feel that the loaf of bread belongs to the people that will starve? What gives them the right to the product of my labor? Why should I slave to feed those that will not feed themselves?Wow, this little rant of yours has no connection whatsoever with what the quote tries to illustrate.
First of all, the loaf is hardly a product of a single person's labour, since a worker in the bakery obtained flour produced by other workers and so on, which means that the loaf of bread is a product of social production.
Second of all, labour productivity has reached high degrees, so high in fact as to reaching the ability to feed every single human being living on the planet, and then some. But the problem lies in the fact that the poor and hungry cannot be exclusively blamed for their condition, since much of the factors behind it is in fact a social result of a specific mode of production, based on exploitation and systematic exclusion, namely capitalism.

I'd add that your brazen selfishness is quite unwarranted in this day and age when scarcity could easily become a matter of past.
Another thing is if you base your ethics on notions of your personal supremacy over others, in the form of appropriation of thier labour (being a capitalist) or any other.


3)"The proletarian finds her or himself abjectly dependent on the capitalist, for ‘employment’, for ‘a chance to make a living’, for access to means of production. Though the proletarian does all productive labour, the capitalist alone controls production – simply by owning the means of production, which allows him to buy and thus own labour-power as well."

If the worker is so productive, why can't the worker start their own venture? Save up money, turn it into capital, enjoy his/her productivity and live comfortably? If not save, then get a loan?Why would a worker be forced to start a venture, and thereby exposing himself to ruthless competition which commonly destroys a good percantage of first time entities which enter the capitalist market? Even then the situation wouldn't change since capitalists need wage labour, and it is absolutely immposible for capitalism to go on without wage labour, which means that only a small portion of the working class overally will be enabled to become a capitalist.

Also, you didn't understand the use of the term "productive labour" properly.


4)"the capitalist alone controls production – simply by owning the means of production..."

How did he get these means of production? In rare cases, it was inherited. In others, by working their way up, taking risks that others don't want to take (because they don't see the need, they feel that they "deserve" it). In others, they try, and fail, and try, and fail, until they succeed. Why is this immoral? I don't understand. That's a false assumption that inheritance represents a rare case.
Also, the risk argument is not valid when it comes to explaining capitalist profits since, see above, capitalists need people who do not take risks, they are absolutely essential to them even being able to take risks.

Also, no one's arguing here from a moral point of view. Rather, I'm arguing from the point of view of my own interests as a worker (well, a working student to be precise) since capitalist rule includes direct attacks on the living standard, working conditions and so on of the people it depends on - workers.

[DinodudeEpic]

This is really stupid, you practically are ruining the rights of the individual via the objectivist/anarcho-capitalist system indirectly. In your system, a few rich doches would treat the poor (As a collective entity created by the rich.) as a piece of crap. The rich would use force to subvert the poor into working for them. (Via mercenary armies, and economic conditions.) They would own land, and pretty turn into states themselves.

The only way the Anarcho-capitalist system would work without new states popping out is if the rich bourgeois were all perfectly nice people. The system is just about as workable as the stereotype of communism as a perfect system where all the people share things equally.

Or, you can follow Proudhon and I, and support a mutualist/market socialist system. (Although I advocate participatory democracy with welfare as opposed to anarchy)

The nuclear family is so much part of life that we have to just wait until a cultural movement/technology comes to remove it. But letting parents starve children(Or sell them!?)? Adoption and abortion are way more moral and practical then letting them starve.

Also, children and their parents have a social contract. Parents are to give their children needs/wants/rights and have to guarantee that the children are not hurt (the Parent can't abuse the child), but can make rules that limit the child's actions.

[Judicator]

1) Not necessarily. You could have something like a watch where one that's gold plated and one that's plastic have the same use value but not the same value.

2) People ate bread before capitalism there for the use value is already known. The bread belongs to the people who produced not those that own the grain farm and mill. We don't advocate anyone slaving to feed others.

3) In Marx's time the capitalist ensures that the worker only receives enough to survive and reproduce. In our time this is prevalent in the eastern world but not so much in the west though it still happens and those that climb to the top are few.

4) Most get it through inheritances and simple opportunism. For example say you have the late 1800's early 1900's. In this time for example say you were born into a middle class family and had a little wealth. If this was right before ciggrete manufacturing and you got the idea for starting a cigarettes factory. You could technically take over the market and own a large monopoly from there on out for producing cigarettes.

Also understand that when you read Marx you are reading something that was written over a hundred years ago. Not all of it still correlates to today but a lot does.

1) Aren't you using the gold plated watch to satisfy a want the lesser product does not?

2) Why doesn't the bread belong to whoever ends up with the loaf after a series of voluntary transactions?

3) What would prevent a clever worker from not having kids and saving the money? What allowed Marx to leap from "in my time, wages are subsistence level" to "capitalism necessitates subsistence wages for all noncapitalists?"

4) Doesn't opportunism involve risk?

[RGacky3]

2) Why doesn't the bread belong to whoever ends up with the loaf after a series of voluntary transactions?


Not of those "voluntary transactions" were based on a totally unvoluntary system of ownership.


3) What would prevent a clever worker from not having kids and saving the money? What allowed Marx to leap from "in my time, wages are subsistence level" to "capitalism necessitates subsistence wages for all noncapitalists?"


Oh I don't know, nature, human desire, being human, wanting to live as a human, something libertarians totally forget about when dealing with poor people.


4) Doesn't opportunism involve risk?

Not always, and sometimes, many times very little, either way does'nt matter.

[Judicator]

Not of those "voluntary transactions" were based on a totally unvoluntary system of ownership.


What do you mean by "unvoluntary system of ownership"?



Oh I don't know, nature, human desire, being human, wanting to live as a human, something libertarians totally forget about when dealing with poor people.

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. Go to Osco and buy protection. Even before this was available, surely *some* people could have opted out of having kids.

[CHE with an AK]

Ayn Rand, the patron saint of nerdy young men desperate to be treated special because they're convinced they are smarter than everyone else. If you're older than 27 and you continue to believe that Ayn Rand was a genius, and not a twisted reactionar­y with an axe to grind, then you're still really a self-absor­bed little boy.

Rand and Objectivism is a narcissist­'s dream. It appeals to young people mostly, who are the only ones who ever read her tired, boring books with their twisted philosophy and think it some kind of grand ideal because they are still in the invincible­, ambitious mode and have not yet learned that there is no such thing as the self-made man. It's a total fantasy.

NEWSFLASH: Everything you are and everything you accomplish involves the cooperatio­n and involvemen­t of others, frequently even sacrifices­. From parents to teachers to the people who bring you your food and carry away your garbage, from those who police your neighborho­ods and clean your houses, it takes a village. For those to whom much is given, much is expected. Rand's ideas are narcissist­ic and juvenile to the highest order. It's a romance novel with no heart, hard, unyielding­, unmerciful­, voracious, and all consuming. It's certainly no way to run a human society. Ironically, most Randians would hate it because almost none of them would be on top.

[RGacky3]

What do you mean by "unvoluntary system of ownership"?


You have NO SAY in what land is public and what land is private, you don't get to have a say, you don't get to have a say in whether the resources in your area are private or the commons, the same goes with the industry.

Those ownership conditions were unvoluntary and you live with the results.


Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. Go to Osco and buy protection. Even before this was available, surely *some* people could have opted out of having kids.

Of coarse they could, my point is people are people, and many people want to have children, or should family be an exclusive privilege for the rich?

[Fabrizio]

Ayn Rand, the patron saint of nerdy young men desperate to be treated special because they're convinced they are smarter than everyone else. If you're older than 27 and you continue to believe that Ayn Rand was a genius, and not a twisted reactionar*y with an axe to grind, then you're still really a self-absor*bed little boy.

Rand and Objectivism is a narcissist*'s dream. It appeals to young people mostly, who are the only ones who ever read her tired, boring books with their twisted philosophy and think it some kind of grand ideal because they are still in the invincible*, ambitious mode and have not yet learned that there is no such thing as the self-made man. It's a total fantasy.

NEWSFLASH: Everything you are and everything you accomplish involves the cooperatio*n and involvemen*t of others, frequently even sacrifices*. From parents to teachers to the people who bring you your food and carry away your garbage, from those who police your neighborho*ods and clean your houses, it takes a village. For those to whom much is given, much is expected. Rand's ideas are narcissist*ic and juvenile to the highest order. It's a romance novel with no heart, hard, unyielding*, unmerciful*, voracious, and all consuming. It's certainly no way to run a human society. Ironically, most Randians would hate it because almost none of them would be on top.

LMAO. So much of this is ironic. As if Che worshipping has nothing to do with narcissistic, immature young men who are fighting for a system which they would be slaves under.

[CHE with an AK]

So much of this is ironic.
You want to know what is ironic? Being a fascist boot-licking reactionary "pro-life" douche on a revolutionary leftist site.



Che worshipping
I don't worship Che. I just admire his accomplishments, agree with his ideals, and would love to follow in his post-revolution example by putting right-wing pieces of shit like you up against a wall.

Now get back in your uncle's crawl space.


ps. If men could get abortions, then they would be available in a vending machine.

[Fabrizio]

What is ironic is that you call me a fascist and then say you want to put me up against a wall, in the same post.

[CHE with an AK]

What is ironic is that you call me a fascist and then say you want to put me up against a wall, in the same post.
Fascists aren't the only one's that use violence, so do capitalists, democracies, republics, communists, christians, monarchies, feudal states, anarchists, Marxists etc.

The point is who you use it against?

[Thirsty Crow]

1) Aren't you using the gold plated watch to satisfy a want the lesser product does not?The differences in kinds of wanst, in this instance between the want for social prestige/satisfaction of personal aesthetics and a simpler want to be able to know the time at any moment, do not account for the value difference and cannot be taken as a sufficient explanatory framework within which certain economic phenomena would be explained in detail.


2) Why doesn't the bread belong to whoever ends up with the loaf after a series of voluntary transactions?The thing is that these "voluntary" transactions yet again cannot explain economic phenomena, but rather serve as an idealist justification of capitalism since the assumption of them being voluntary is insufficient in that it does not examine the social context in which human wants arise, as well as the specific social mechanisms of directing them in favour of particular participants in the economic "game"


3) What would prevent a clever worker from not having kids and saving the money? What allowed Marx to leap from "in my time, wages are subsistence level" to "capitalism necessitates subsistence wages for all noncapitalists?"Your notion of wages is false.
The point is that wages hover around the level necessary for the reproduction of the workforce, but that includes other things apart from the necessities of bare survival. It is a culturally relative theoretical postulate, in that at given level of productivity, at a given state of the cultural development of consumption patterns, the wages will be hover around the level needed to satisfy this culturally specific needs.

[Demogorgon]

I just admire his accomplishments, agree with his ideals, and would love to follow in his post-revolution example by putting right-wing pieces of shit like you up against a wall.

What precisely is gained from telling someone you want to kill them?

[syndicat]

I am interested in rational debate, and I find myself not being capable of understanding Communism, so I figured the best way to start would be to post some questions of mine and see what results I get.

I will be using exerpts from Marx's Kapital for Beginners (vb/marx-39-s-t41211/index. html)

1) "Only in capitalist society does exchangeability become an established feature of the labour product. Only in capitalist society, thus, does the product lead a double life – as a value and a use-value."

In a free market, does the so-called "use-value" not dictate the capitalistic "value"?

What is "value"? For Marx this has to do with the social investment of labor in producing it. This is not the same as the market price.

You might refer to the preferences of the population as determining the value, but people might prefer something to be produced, but if it is expensive to produce and they are not prepared to pay enough to cover expenses and make a profit, it won't be produced. so preferences alone cannot explain why things are produced or what their price is. This is also shaped by bargaining power in the market (such as degree of monopoly or monopsony power) and costs of production.



2) "Take a loaf of bread, for example. Sitting in a supermarket, its usefulness lies completely dormant. Though perfectly edible, it must prove its exchange-value before it can be eaten. If no one buys it, the bread will rot on the shelf – even though people will starve. The same is true for every commodity: NO SALE, NO USE. This is a principle of private property. Commodities are not made to be given away. Capitalists do not share with workers."

Why do you feel that the loaf of bread belongs to the people that will starve? What gives them the right to the product of my labor? Why should I slave to feed those that will not feed themselves?

Capitalists qua capitaliists are parasites. It is the workers who produce the bread. But they do not legally own it nor are they entitled to the revenue, under capitalism. Only the owner is.



3)"The proletarian finds her or himself abjectly dependent on the capitalist, for ‘employment’, for ‘a chance to make a living’, for access to means of production. Though the proletarian does all productive labour, the capitalist alone controls production – simply by owning the means of production, which allows him to buy and thus own labour-power as well."

If the worker is so productive, why can't the worker start their own venture? Save up money, turn it into capital, enjoy his/her productivity and live comfortably? If not save, then get a loan?

Most workers live paycheck to paycheck. To not be forced to work for an employer today a person would already have to have the skills and money to start a business -- which very few workers have, and there would have to be a market where it is feasible for a small business to survive. In fact there are few such markets. There is only so much of a market for another nails parlor.

And how would workers get the capital to compete in furniture manufacture, car manufacture, telephone systems, electric power production, natural gas distribution, supermarkets, etc.? Most industries require large amounts of capital to enter.

And if they are successful, you simply add another capitalist who can hire and control and exploit other people. Thus the system of oppression & exploitation of workers would continue. People can't escape this system as individuals but only en masse, through a mass movement to change the social arrangement to one where hiring people to be your wage-slaves is illegal and workers collectively, democratically manage production.



4)"the capitalist alone controls production – simply by owning the means of production..."

How did he get these means of production? In rare cases, it was inherited.


Wrong. According to Lester Thurow and a number of others who've studied this, about half of all capital assets are due to inheritance. The study "Born on Third Base" shows that most of the people on the Fortune 400 list either inherited their fortune, inherited a sizeable financial stake, or had parents who were prosperous affluent professionals.

There are other ways that capital is acquired. If people own a business, they can use the fact that most people do not to hire them at wages low enough to make profits, and thus build up their assets. This is wealth-making via exploitation and domination of others.

Another way is sheer luck. Someone buys a piece of low priced real estate. then some years later the area is in fashion and a lot of investment is going in their and their property's value goes up many times what they paid for it. they did nothing at all to obtain this. just owned it.

People at the top of corporations and the upper levels of management and professions have much more job security than working class people do. Hence they actually are in a less risky situation.

You may say they "take risks". The only relevant "risk" is potential loss of capital as an investor, if a company does poorly or goes bankrupt. But why should they have the right to take that "risk"? In other words, why should they own the society's productive assets? Risk of failure is inherent to social investment, and there would be some potential for failure under a socialized economy as well. It's just that the community as a whole takes on this risk.



In others, by working their way up, taking risks that others don't want to take (because they don't see the need, they feel that they "deserve" it). In others, they try, and fail, and try, and fail, until they succeed. Why is this immoral? I don't understand.

It's immoral to dominate and exploit other humans. That's a fundamental form of injustice. Even if a person works hard as an employee and saves and then forms a business, as a business owner they can then participate in the exploitation of those who they hire. They wouldn't be able to do this if there weren't a majority class of people who don't own productive property but must rent out their working abililties to employers. The ability to profit from the funds...even if those funds were acquired thru work...depends on the exploitation of others.

And working hard and saving is not the way that most capital is acquired...only a small amount of capital assets are acquired that way.

[kahimikarie]

"Why do you feel that the loaf of bread belongs to the people that will starve? What gives them the right to the product of my labor? Why should I slave to feed those that will not feed themselves?"

Jesus christers

[Fabrizio]

Fascists aren't the only one's that use violence, so do capitalists, democracies, republics, communists, christians, monarchies, feudal states, anarchists, Marxists etc.

The point is who you use it against?

In your case, anyone you disagree with?

What is ironic is not that I am on a revleft forum, but that you go onto the Opposing Ideologies section of a revleft forum, and tell non-communists that they should not be there and that you would kill us.:lol:

[Thirsty Crow]

In your case, anyone you disagree with?

What is ironic is not that I am on a revleft forum, but that you go onto the Opposing Ideologies section of a revleft forum, and tell non-communists that they should not be there and that you would kill us.:lol:
Disregard the violence fetishism. Most commonly it is a sign of bankrupt politics.

[CHE with an AK]

What precisely is gained from telling someone you want to kill them?
(a) Therapeutic venting
(b) Letting fascists with Norway fantasies know that some of us are more than happy to fight back
(c) Technically, I was imagining a post-revolution hypothetical, where I was placed in charge of purging society from right-wing shit kickers like this moron. In that case, yeah I’d gladly yell the “fuego!”




tell non-communists that ... you would kill us.
Would you rather me lie?

Sure, we'll live happily ever after - I was just kidding around. :)




Disregard the violence fetishism.

(a) Did Marx ever even speak of "violence fetishism", or is this a new hippy buzz-word thought up while passing the bowl?





Most commonly it is a sign of bankrupt politics.
(b) Or just someone who is tired of circle-jerk meetings and pampleting, while capitalism starves 18,000 children to death every day.

[Fabrizio]

looooool you talk about Norway fantasies, but it was Che who said he would nuke the west if it came down to a world war. So in reality Anders Behring Breivik didn't kill anyone hwo che would have spared. Yes or no?

No I don't want you to lie, I am happy for you to be exposed! It shows that my system is superior: under capitalism, you can say what you like, and nobody stops you. Under your system, I would be shot for thought-crime.

[DinodudeEpic]

Ya, assume that all of communism is totalitarian from one marxist-leninist maoist member.....Without taking in account all the other tendencies around here.

Really stupid is what I say.

[Fabrizio]

Ya, assume that all of communism is totalitarian from one marxist-leninist maoist member.....Without taking in account all the other tendencies around here.

Really stupid is what I say.

I was addressing him personally - I meant his "Guevarist" system in particular.

[Dr Mindbender]

che with an ak is the living embodiment of all that makes me facepalm about the state of the modern left.

[CHE with an AK]

looooool you talk about Norway fantasies, but it was Che who said he would nuke the west if it came down to a world war.
In a sea of idiotic-dipshits, you're Poseidon.




So in reality Anders Behring Breivik didn't kill anyone who che would have spared. Yes or no?.
No. Che didn't want to Nuke Norway, or Europe, or any nation for that matter. Now, leading up to the Cuban missile crisis, had the U.S. invaded the island again (Bay of Pigs) then Che supported lobbing a nuke at the U.S. This legitimate for any nation under attack to defend themselves.




I am happy for you to be exposed!
Exposed? I don't make any secret of the fact that I hate fascists like you. I think the World would be better without you.


Now, go play in traffic. :)

[Thirsty Crow]

(a) Did Marx ever even speak of "violence fetishism", or is this a new hippy buzz-word thought up while passing the bowl?

Oh jeez I didn't know revolutionaries shouldn't talk about anything Marx didn't talk about. But then again, I guess that Marx, or a whole lot of revolutionaries, didn't base their political discourse on empty sloganeering about how reactionaries should be shot.

Seriously, why don't you do us a favor and go engage the contemporary repressive apparatus of a given capitalist state in guerilla combat? That way I wouldn't run into your mindless crap here.

@Fabrizio: he has no "system". The "Guevarism" which you speak about is a bad joke at best.

[Dr Mindbender]

bleating the pejoritive 'fascist' at everyone whose views lie remotely to the right of centre does no justice to either the term fascist or genuine incidences of fascistic sentiment.

[CHE with an AK]

che with an ak is the living embodiment of all that makes me facepalm about the state of the modern left.
So, you're saying I don't have support of the crucial four man "Anarchist Technocrat" contingent? :rolleyes:

I'm sure I can manage.

[Dr Mindbender]

So, you're saying I don't have support of the crucial four man "Anarchist Technocrat" contingent? :rolleyes:

I'm sure I can manage.

nope im saying the left doesnt need the support of lunatics with lust for bourgeoisie blood sitting in their mom's basement in berets and camouflage fatigues.

[CHE with an AK]

bleating the pejoritive 'fascist' at everyone whose views lie remotely to the right of centre does no justice to either the term fascist or genuine incidences of fascistic sentiment.
He claims to be "anti-antifa". I suggest you use your technocratology to learn what the fuck that is.

[Dr Mindbender]

He claims to be "anti-antifa". I suggest you use your technocratology to learn what the fuck that is.

If that is your only evidence that he is a fascist then maybe you are reading too much between the lines.

Speaking as an experienced anti fascist activist, i encountered hostility from all sorts of people while on anti fascist demos and activities. That doesn't make them all fascist. Heck not all of them were white.

Your inclination to jump down the throats of everyone that rubs your political fur the wrong way does no one any favours. Least of all the left wing argument. Chill the fuck out.

[CHE with an AK]

Oh jeez I didn't know revolutionaries shouldn't talk about anything Marx didn't talk about.
Ok, how about Engels from your sig? I just wanted to clarify that you pulled "violence fetishism" from your ass.

Throwing fetishism ater a word doesn't make it dialectical materialism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Ok, how about Engels from your sig? I just wanted to clarify that you pulled "violence fetishism" from your ass.

Throwing fetishism ater a word doesn't make it dialectical materialism.
Wow, you're really good at throwing catch phrases and slogans around.

[CHE with an AK]

you are reading too much between the lines.
He should be at $torm Front, not here.

[Dr Mindbender]

He should be at $torm Front, not here.
This is just another incidence of opinion dressed as fact. Try again.

At least he isnt spamming the forum with bullshit bravado about wanting to kill people.

[CHE with an AK]

At least he isnt spamming the forum with bullshit bravado about wanting to kill people.
So you're defending the right of right-wing (anti-antifa) fascists to post here? Fine, at least we know where we both stand.

... I'd like to curb-stomp fascists, and you'd like to converse over coffee with them.

[Dr Mindbender]

So you're defending the right of right-wing (anti-antifa) fascists to post here? Fine, at least we know where we both stand.

Firstly, I've not seen anything to suggest he is a fascist (other than his moniker with which youve got 5 by putting 2 + 2 together) and moreover you have failed to show any real evidence that he is a fascist.


I'd like to curb-stomp fascists, and you'd like to converse over coffee with them.
I see fascism as as an antiquated school of thought, even an illness or disease. Much like the desire to burn witches. You could argue fascists are the intellectual heirs of witch burners. A civilised society would eradicate the motives and opportunities for people to have fascist thought in the first place. Killing individual fascists is attacking the symptom not the disease itself and does nothing other than to satisfy a barbaric punitive bloodlust which should be uncharacteristic of a truly progressive society.