the stockmarket - what is it good for?

[ichneumon]

this is primarily addressed at the capitalists, though anyone who understands can answer, of course. how does the stockmarket benefit a society? what does it *do*? assuming it has some function outside of letting financial parasites grow fat and bloated off the blood of honest workers....

[Marsella]

how does the stockmarket benefit a society?
Provides capital to create businesses which in turn creates a demand for jobs.


assuming it has some function outside of letting financial parasites grow fat and bloated off the blood of honest workers....
All the money I earn (at a fast-food resteraunt) I invest in shares. Yes: money that was paid for my labour. Does that make me a fat and bloated capitalist (even though I physically worked for the money to invest)? Why would I leave my money in a bank account which offers at best 6.5% interest per annum (which barely covers inflation), where I can make that in a matter of days?

The way a stock market runs could be helpful to a Communist society, in that workers could own shares in the company. Depending on how well the company goes workers are distributed a proportional amount. Just a thought.

Of course, there are those who purely day trade and that will never be the case in Communist society since there should be an equal obligation of all to work...

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:23 pm
this is primarily addressed at the capitalists, though anyone who understands can answer, of course. how does the stockmarket benefit a society? what does it *do*? assuming it has some function outside of letting financial parasites grow fat and bloated off the blood of honest workers....
it's a way for people without capital who want capital to into contact with people who have capital and are willing to spare some. outside of banking and bonds, it IS the finance industry. the economy would slow down dramatically if we didn't have it.

for instance, microsoft probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground without it (they might have initially used loans from a bank, but later on). a guy like bill gates in his begininning doesn't have the capital to just up and start a succesful business, he needs investors who have confidence in his abilities. even if you do have some already, often times it's not enough to compete in the current market.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 08:32 pm
All the money I earn (at a fast-food resteraunt) I invest in shares. Yes: money that was paid for my labour. Does that make me a fat and bloated capitalist (even though I physically worked for the money to invest)?
Well you certainly have the mind set of a "fat and bloated capitalist". Don&#39;t worry, you&#39;ll get there one day <_<

...unless the accumulation process destroys your investment and forces you back down from your petit bourgeois status to a proletarian status.


The way a stock market runs could be helpful to a Communist society, in that workers could own shares in the company. Depending on how well the company goes workers are distributed a proportional amount. Just a thought. What a terrible thought; this already occurs in capitalism. Haven&#39;t you ever heard of "Employee stock options"?

The point of a communist revolution would be to utterly destroy the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, NOT use it&#33;

[ichneumon]

it&#39;s a way for people without capital who want capital to into contact with people who have capital and are willing to spare some. outside of banking and bonds, it IS the finance industry. the economy would slow down dramatically if we didn&#39;t have it.

for instance, microsoft probably wouldn&#39;t have gotten off the ground without it (they might have initially used loans from a bank, but later on). a guy like bill gates in his begininning doesn&#39;t have the capital to just up and start a succesful business, he needs investors who have confidence in his abilities. even if you do have some already, often times it&#39;s not enough to compete in the current market.

community owned banks should make loans to people based on what the community wants, not expected return. employee ownership of stock is one way of effectively unionizing a company. what are the differences?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:17 pm

it&#39;s a way for people without capital who want capital to into contact with people who have capital and are willing to spare some. outside of banking and bonds, it IS the finance industry. the economy would slow down dramatically if we didn&#39;t have it.

for instance, microsoft probably wouldn&#39;t have gotten off the ground without it (they might have initially used loans from a bank, but later on). a guy like bill gates in his begininning doesn&#39;t have the capital to just up and start a succesful business, he needs investors who have confidence in his abilities. even if you do have some already, often times it&#39;s not enough to compete in the current market.

community owned banks should make loans to people based on what the community wants, not expected return. employee ownership of stock is one way of effectively unionizing a company. what are the differences?
because communities by themselves don&#39;t often have the recources required to invest efectively in a modern economy, that and there is a lot of specialized skill in financed that the average perosn doesn&#39;t have.

other than that the differences depend on the system in place, but i don&#39;t want this to be a capitalism vs. communism thread.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:17 pm

it&#39;s a way for people without capital who want capital to into contact with people who have capital and are willing to spare some. outside of banking and bonds, it IS the finance industry. the economy would slow down dramatically if we didn&#39;t have it.

for instance, microsoft probably wouldn&#39;t have gotten off the ground without it (they might have initially used loans from a bank, but later on). a guy like bill gates in his begininning doesn&#39;t have the capital to just up and start a succesful business, he needs investors who have confidence in his abilities. even if you do have some already, often times it&#39;s not enough to compete in the current market.

community owned banks should make loans to people based on what the community wants, not expected return. employee ownership of stock is one way of effectively unionizing a company. what are the differences?
Okay.

A community in the northeast USA wants a loan so as to build large greenhouses so they can grow oranges.

1. This means there is less money to be borrowed so as to upgrade the lobster fleet. Is that a better situation for the community?

2. Are we to believe that it is irrelevent whether the value of growing oranges in Maine exceeds the costs in growing those oranges in Maine? If this is true, how are resources allocated in any fashion? How does the community know if their desires make any sense? What arguments, besides a decision based upon total arbitrariness, can be made?

[slybackstabber]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:23 am
this is primarily addressed at the capitalists, though anyone who understands can answer, of course. how does the stockmarket benefit a society? what does it *do*? assuming it has some function outside of letting financial parasites grow fat and bloated off the blood of honest workers....
In theory, it&#39;s supposed to be a venue where capital can be raised from the public to assist enterprises that need an infusion of money to expand. In practice, in these late capitalist days, it serves as a venue for financial speculation. The financial markets are thronged with financial sharks and parasites, and the game favors large operators, often equipped with knowledge (sometimes illicit insider knowledge) that allows them a decisive edge over the small guy. The financial markets are yet another instrument for taking from the poor and giving to the rich. I would recommend Doug Henwood&#39;s "Wall Street" for further reading on the matter.

[Marsella]

Well you certainly have the mind set of a "fat and bloated capitalist". Don&#39;t worry, you&#39;ll get there one day

No, I just realise that my meagre wage isn&#39;t enough to support my future.


...unless the accumulation process destroys your investment and forces you back down from your petit bourgeois status to a proletarian status.

How does the value of my stock dictate my class? Since I have no degree/trade I sell my labor. What difference does it make what I do with my money? Based on your analysis keeping money in a bank is bourgeoisie - after all, the banks invest your money into private enterprise- wtf do you think you get interest?


What a terrible thought; this already occurs in capitalism. Haven&#39;t you ever heard of "Employee stock options"?

This is completley different from employee stock options. In a public company in capitalism ANYONE can invest and &#39;bludge&#39; off workers. In a communist society only workers will profit. Hey, thats an unusual thought: workers actually reaping the benefits of their work&#33;


The point of a communist revolution would be to utterly destroy the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, NOT use it&#33;

How does this have anything to do with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? I already said that the present stock-market would never be impossible in communism. But some features could usefully be retained.


"fat and bloated capitalist".

ALL the money I have EARNED is from MY LABOUR. You can&#39;t function as a communist in a capitalist world: that would be entirely primitivist.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:27 pm
No, I just realise that my meagre wage isn&#39;t enough to support my future.
You are an ambitious one, aren&#39;t you&#33;


How does the value of my stock dictate my class? You live on the stock and on your labor. That qualifies as petit bourgeois.

If you survived solely on the stock, you&#39;d be bourgeois.


Based on your analysis keeping money in a bank is bourgeoisie - after all, the banks invest your money into private enterprise- wtf do you think you get interest? Oh yeah, having studied economics for 8 years now I&#39;ve never thought about it before. :lol:

Do you have such an extraordinary sum of money in the bank that you live off the interest alone? No? Then you&#39;re not bourgeois.

Is the interest enough to "enjoy more out of life" with? No? Then you&#39;re not petit bourgeois.


In a public company in capitalism ANYONE can invest and &#39;bludge&#39; off workers. In a communist society only workers will profit. Hey, thats an unusual thought: workers actually reaping the benefits of their work&#33; Well...

a) That&#39;s not a communist society, that&#39;s a socialist one since you&#39;re not proposing the abolition of wage slavery.

b) That&#39;s called titoism.


ALL the money I have EARNED is from MY LABOUR. You can&#39;t function as a communist in a capitalist world: that would be entirely primitivist. So you both use and don&#39;t use the stock market? Or is the stock market gained money strictly "off record" for your class status because you&#39;re special and Mr. Buffet is not?

[Marsella]

You are an ambitious one, aren&#39;t you&#33;

Stop with the personal attacks, it just discredits your arguments. Is it ambitious to want to one-day own a home? Is it ambitious to want to be able to afford uni books (second-hand)? Or food? Or transport? That&#39;s not ambitious that&#39;s just trying to get by.


You live on the stock and on your labor. That qualifies as petit bourgeois.
If you survived solely on the stock, you&#39;d be bourgeois.

So what do you suggest is the alternative? Of course I sell my labor because other employment opportunities are limited. But OH NO I shouldn&#39;t do that because that&#39;s supporting capitalism&#33;

And I wasn&#39;t referring to owning stock but the value. According to you if it accumulated into profit I&#39;m petty bourgeoisie but if it doesn&#39;t I&#39;m proletarian?


Do you have such an extraordinary sum of money in the bank that you live off the interest alone? No? Then you&#39;re not bourgeois.

But the fact that it is invested in private companies means that anyone who has a bank account supports capitalism. And many do live off the interest of money in the bank, the fact is I don&#39;t have enough.


a) That&#39;s not a communist society, that&#39;s a socialist one since you&#39;re not proposing the abolition of wage slavery.

Im proposing that those who do the labor should earn the dividends of such work. That of course, means the abolition of surplus labor- since the capitalist cannot directly benefit from excess labor.


b) That&#39;s called titoism.

Why? and Who says so?


So you both use and don&#39;t use the stock market? Or is the stock market gained money strictly "off record" for your class status because you&#39;re special and Mr. Buffet is not?

Er, of course I use the stock market because over long term it offers higher returns than simply the bank. Mr Buffet earns money purely from trading- I do not.


Oh yeah, having studied economics for 8 years now I&#39;ve never thought about it before.

Do you work? And who are you to dictate how the money I have toiled for can and cannot be used? Communism deprives no person to keep the profits of their own labor- but it does deprive persons from keeping the profits of others- it is true that the stock-market is essentially keeping the profits of others (via dividends).

Isn&#39;t it true that Marx was fundamentally wrong in regards to workers staying pauperised - I have shown that I can raise myself to a higher class with some hard work.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:48 pm
Is it ambitious to want to one-day own a home?
It&#39;s called "the American Dream", isn&#39;t it?


Is it ambitious to want to be able to afford uni books (second-hand)? Why not use the library?


Or food? You&#39;re working a job where you can&#39;t even afford food? What is it, dog walking?


Or transport? Car pool, bus, light rails, walking, all of these things are obviously too costly especially the latter most.


So what do you suggest is the alternative? Of course I sell my labor because other employment opportunities are limited. But OH NO I shouldn&#39;t do that because that&#39;s supporting capitalism&#33;
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, brilliant reading comprehension you have.


And I wasn&#39;t referring to owning stock but the value. According to you if it accumulated into profit I&#39;m petty bourgeoisie but if it doesn&#39;t I&#39;m proletarian? Yeah, by definition that&#39;s what it makes you.

You&#39;d be living off of surplus value and your own labor. That&#39;s petit bourgeoisie in a nutshell.


But the fact that it is invested in private companies means that anyone who has a bank account supports capitalism. And many do live off the interest of money in the bank, the fact is I don&#39;t have enough.
Really? This is the first I&#39;m hearing about people living off the (what, 5%) interest of their principal; but I always imagined people in Beverly Hills would do so.

I don&#39;t personally know anyone who can live off the interest of their bank account; not even enough to buy say a sofa.

I can&#39;t even buy a meal with the interest from my bank account&#33;


Im proposing that those who do the labor should earn the dividends of such work. That of course, means the abolition of surplus labor- since the capitalist cannot directly benefit from excess labor. Yeah, that&#39;s titoism in a nutshell all right.



b) That&#39;s called titoism.

Why? and Who says so? Because you&#39;re not really getting rid of the markets, you&#39;re just "getting rid" of surplus value.

As for "says who?" Well, there are plenty of books at your local public library on the economy of Yugoslavia under Josip Tito.


Er, of course I use the stock market because over long term it offers higher returns than simply the bank. Mr Buffet earns money purely from trading- I do not.
So you lose your money from your tradings, thus you&#39;re not petit bourgeois.

You make money from this form of surplus value and you make money from your labor. Thus you&#39;re definitionally petit bourgeois.

Sorry.


Do you work? Yeah I work, food doesn&#39;t magically come from nowhere. And the rent doesn&#39;t pay itself either.


And who are you to dictate how the money I have toiled for can and cannot be used? I&#39;m not telling you how to spend your money, and I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve told you anywhere in this thread how to spend your money.

I&#39;m just using class analysis, and based on how you spend your money, you are petit bourgeois. I&#39;m going to guess some sort of Leninist, or a variant thereof (maoist, trot, whatever).


Communism deprives no person to keep the profits of their own labor- but it does deprive persons from keeping the profits of others- it is true that the stock-market is essentially keeping the profits of others (via dividends). Yes, and...?

You basically admitted that the stock market is "keeping the profits of others", which doesn&#39;t really make sense. I assume you mean it is entirely surplus value based.

By taking a significant advantage of this, that makes one petit bourgeois. By solely depending on it, that makes one bourgeois.


Isn&#39;t it true that Marx was fundamentally wrong in regards to workers staying pauperised - I have shown that I can raise myself to a higher class with some hard work. --emphasis added

That&#39;s the famous myth of capitalism: anyone can get rich if they work hard enough.

Sadly, that&#39;s not really the whole story. Where do you suppose this wealth comes from? It simply falls from the sky?

If you answered "yes", click here. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56640) It&#39;s a critique of the Subjective Theory of Value, which says that there is an "unlimited amount of wealth" that can be ascertained.

No, capitalism is a casino. For every huge winner, there are hundreds of millions of losers. And work has little to do with it.

Odd though, you basically admitted to being petit bourgeois. Why are you so uppity about it?

[inquisitive_socialist]

funny that people who claim to read the theory behind their arguements tend to take offence when they fall into a category they&#39;ve read about. i wonder though, if my grandmother sets aside a 6000 dollar IRA for me, but i can only spend it on school expenses, does that make me a petit bourgeois? i would say not, but i know too little of economics and what exactly my IRA is to decide. i would say yes if i spent it on a car or other capital that i can possess, but if its spent on school costs i think not right? i could care less either way, but it would be nice to know.

[Marsella]

Why not use the library?

I do but I can&#39;t stay there until 2 in the morning, plus law books go out of date quickly.


Car pool, bus, light rails, walking, all of these things are obviously too costly especially the latter most.

I catch a train. If I walked it would take me a week.


You&#39;re working a job where you can&#39;t even afford food? What is it, dog walking?
I earn half of the average hourly rate - and I don&#39;t even work a 40 hour week.


Yeah, by definition that&#39;s what it makes you.
Well then, I&#39;m afraid that half my country are petty bourgeoise since half the country owns stocks. Isn&#39;t socialism about the majority of the working class and doesn&#39;t Marx maintain that workers will only recieve a wage that supports their substinence (i.e rent + food). That doesn&#39;t add up. Private property isn&#39;t just the domain of the bourgeoise or the p.b



Because you&#39;re not really getting rid of the markets, you&#39;re just "getting rid" of surplus value.
So communism aims at getting rid of markets? Explain that to me...

I was under the impression that it aimed at ridding of private property which is the result of surplus value.


Really? This is the first I&#39;m hearing about people living off the (what, 5%) interest of their principal; but I always imagined people in Beverly Hills would do so.
Of course its plausable. You studied economics for 8 years and can&#39;t even understand this?


I don&#39;t personally know anyone who can live off the interest of their bank account; not even enough to buy say a sofa.

I can&#39;t even buy a meal with the interest from my bank account&#33;

EXACTLY&#33; That&#39;s why I invest in the stock market because it has far greater returns on money. Get over it.


I&#39;m just using class analysis, and based on how you spend your money, you are petit bourgeois. I&#39;m going to guess some sort of Leninist, or a variant thereof (maoist, trot, whatever).

Your class analysis is fundamentally flawed. It might have worked 120 years ago but it certainly is not the case today. The proletariat is gone in the western world and if it remains then it is a miniscule fraction. Don&#39;t be so dogmatic. And no I&#39;m not a Leninist, Maoist, trotskyist or titoist. I&#39;m a communist and most readily agree with Luxembourg.


You basically admitted that the stock market is "keeping the profits of others", which doesn&#39;t really make sense. I assume you mean it is entirely surplus value based.

Not entirley based. There are other things: supply/demand, chance of take-over, economic viability etc etc of course which you understand.


That&#39;s the famous myth of capitalism: anyone can get rich if they work hard enough.

Sadly, that&#39;s not really the whole story. Where do you suppose this wealth comes from? It simply falls from the sky?

No-one in this world gives you what you want. You have to take it and earn it. The idea that you should get something for not working hard is entirely capitalist. In my country if you work hard enough you can have a good life. Miners earn over &#036;120,000. Stop being so deluded and emotional about the &#39;oppressed&#39; workers.


No, capitalism is a casino. For every huge winner, there are hundreds of millions of losers. And work has little to do with it.


The total number of U.S. millionaires came to nearly 2.5 million, thanks to strong economic growth, low interest rates, tax relief and solid performances by small- and mid-cap stocks, according to the World Wealth Report from Merrill Lynch and CapGemini.

Population of America: 300,000,000 divided by 2500000 = 120.

That means, 1 in every 120 is a millionaire.

You studied economics for 8 years and cannot even understand that&#33;

But yes, I agree that as a worker it would take me several hundred years to become a millionaire.


Odd though, you basically admitted to being petit bourgeois. Why are you so uppity about it?
Because I earn minimum wage, have a uni debt of 10,000 and work at Mc Donalds. And you brand me as petty bourgeoise when I am trying to make the best decisions for my life and for the communist struggle. :unsure:

Get real. :lol:

[ComradeRed]

I do but I can&#39;t stay there until 2 in the morning, plus law books go out of date quickly.
Oh my we don&#39;t want our coal mining lawyer working without in date books now do we? <_<


I earn half of the average hourly rate - and I don&#39;t even work a 40 hour week.
What, you work in half hour intervals or you have a really crappy job that you&#39;re attached to?



Well then, I&#39;m afraid that half my country are petty bourgeoise since half the country owns stocks. Isn&#39;t socialism about the majority of the working class and doesn&#39;t Marx maintain that workers will only recieve a wage that supports their substinence (i.e rent + food). That doesn&#39;t add up. Private property isn&#39;t just the domain of the bourgeoise or the p.b Yes, that&#39;s exactly what I&#39;m saying :rolleyes:

Look you&#39;re getting money from the stock market, you&#39;re getting money from your labor; significant money earned from surplus value + money earned by labor = petit bourgeois.

You seem to think "Put money in stock market = petit bourgeois/bourgeois".

Further you seem to think that it doesn&#39;t affect you&#39;re social situation. It does. That changes how you look at social problems.

That&#39;s basic marx class analysis right there.

How would you feel if, say, they taxed the gains from the stock market more severely?

I don&#39;t think you&#39;d be jumping for joy.

Why is that? Could it be that you&#39;re petit bourgeois?


So communism aims at getting rid of markets? Explain that to me...

I was under the impression that it aimed at ridding of private property which is the result of surplus value. There are plenty of resources out there all ready; for example What is Communism? (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) By Redstar2000.



Of course its plausable. You studied economics for 8 years and can&#39;t even understand this? You need about &#036;20000 to live per year; for the interest to pay for that you need to have (5% interest rates mind you) at least four hundred thousand in the bank (&#036;20000/.05 = &#036;400000).

Even then you&#39;d be living in poverty; to be living half way decently you&#39;d need something closer to one million dollars. Then you need to hope your bank doesn&#39;t get knocked over.

That is unreal to me, having grown up in poverty and then living barely above poverty afterwards.



EXACTLY&#33; That&#39;s why I invest in the stock market because it has far greater returns on money. Get over it. Good job, you&#39;re a petit bourgeois bloke.

You are trying to (as you put it) change your class status.



Your class analysis is fundamentally flawed. It might have worked 120 years ago but it certainly is not the case today. The proletariat is gone in the western world and if it remains then it is a miniscule fraction. Don&#39;t be so dogmatic. And no I&#39;m not a Leninist, Maoist, trotskyist or titoist. I&#39;m a communist and most readily agree with Luxembourg. Oh really? There is no western worker? Everything is produced by magic now? Where was I for this industrial transition.

I&#39;m not asserting, as you seem to be thinking, that owning stock is what makes one petit bourgeois. It&#39;s making sizeable amounts of money from the stock market that makes one petit bourgeois.



No-one in this world gives you what you want. You have to take it and earn it. The idea that you should get something for not working hard is entirely capitalist. In my country if you work hard enough you can have a good life. Miners earn over &#036;120,000. Stop being so deluded and emotional about the &#39;oppressed&#39; workers.
Boy someone&#39;s been watching "Pursuite of Happiness" :lol:

Where do you seriously think this wealth comes from?

The money from the stock market, e.g., just...falls from the sky?

The dividends simply appear from thin air?

No, it&#39;s entirely surplus value. Sorry to break it to you, but that&#39;s surplus value you&#39;re living off of.

That makes you petit bourgeois.



The total number of U.S. millionaires came to nearly 2.5 million, thanks to strong economic growth, low interest rates, tax relief and solid performances by small- and mid-cap stocks, according to the World Wealth Report from Merrill Lynch and CapGemini.
Population of America: 300,000,000 divided by 2500000 = 120.

That means, 1 in every 120 is a millionaire.

You studied economics for 8 years and cannot even understand that&#33;

But yes, I agree that as a worker it would take me several hundred years to become a millionaire.

And from a CNN analysis (http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/09/news/world_wealth/index.htm) of the data:


High net worth is defined in the report as having financial assets of at least &#036;1 million, excluding home real estate. Mid-tier millionaires are defined as having &#036;5 million to &#036;30 million in assets.

Worldwide, there are 8.3 million high net worth individuals, or 7.3 percent more than in 2003. Their wealth totaled &#036;30.8 trillion. 8.3 Mn / 6 Bn = 0.00138; you have only a tenth of a percent chance to be born into wealth&#33;

Well huh, I ain&#39;t no mathematician nor nothin&#39;, but...

6Bn - 8.3 Mn = 5.9917 Bn people aren&#39;t high net worth individuals.

Oh and take into account the 2.5 Mn; that means:

5.9917 Bn - 2.5 Mn = 5.9892 Bn people aren&#39;t millionaires.

Oh dear, studying math for all those years appeared to pay off.



Because I earn minimum wage, have a uni debt of 10,000 and work at Mc Donalds. And you brand me as petty bourgeoise when I am trying to make the best decisions for my life and for the communist struggle. :unsure:

Get real. :lol: You sound like a classical liberal teenager.

It&#39;s your life, and your decisions. No one&#39;s contesting that.

But based on your decisions, it logically follows that you&#39;re petit bourgeois mate.

And how are these the best decisions for "the communist struggle"? For you to study law? (Because we all know the college equivalency exam, and then going on to a law school is simply a reactionary decision)

I&#39;m sorry to break your heart, but as a materialist you should know that a single individual will not make much of a difference for the struggle. It&#39;s a struggle of billions not one.

You&#39;re not going to go lead "the masses" (as the masses are in need of being led :rolleyes: ) to "victory" whilst single-handedly defeating the bourgeois oppressors.

It&#39;s the workers that will emancipate themselves, not some group of supermen that will do the liberation.

[Marsella]

Oh my we don&#39;t want our coal mining lawyer working without in date books now do we?
Well, law changes see.


Look you&#39;re getting money from the stock market, you&#39;re getting money from your labor; significant money earned from surplus value + money earned by labor = petit bourgeois.
Ahh, now you add significant money. On &#036;3000 I made 300 in a month.


How would you feel if, say, they taxed the gains from the stock market more severely?
I don&#39;t get taxed because I don&#39;t earn enough but just say they did lower the tax bracket it would confirm my views on capitalism.

Obviously your talking in American dollars or British pounds. You would need 500,000 or less with 7% interest to live very comfortably.


That is unreal to me, having grown up in poverty and then living barely above poverty afterwards.
Depends on your particular country and circumstances. I was of course referring to where I&#39;m from.


You are trying to (as you put it) change your class status.
No, I was just pointing out how ridiculous Marx&#39;s class theory is today.


Oh really? There is no western worker? Everything is produced by magic now? Where was I for this industrial transition.
You moron. I said the western PROLETARIAT does not exist. Obviously workers do exist. PROLETARIAT are the class, who having no means of production themselves sell their labour. Their wage reflects their cost of living. THEY DO NOT EXIST OR EXIST IN VERY SMALL QUANTITIES TODAY.


Where do you seriously think this wealth comes from?

The money from the stock market, e.g., just...falls from the sky?

The dividends simply appear from thin air?

No, it&#39;s entirely surplus value. Sorry to break it to you, but that&#39;s surplus value you&#39;re living off of.

That makes you petit bourgeois.

Blah, blah blah. I live off my immediate wage. I invest the rest in the stock market (which I have yet to have withdrawn to actually make a profit).


And how are these the best decisions for "the communist struggle"? For you to study law? (Because we all know the college equivalency exam, and then going on to a law school is simply a reactionary decision)
Marx, Lenin, Castro & numerous other &#39;communists&#39; studied law.

Why do you want to study economics? Maybe because it interest you? But hang on, most economists are PETTY/CAPITALISTS therefore you must be too&#33;


I&#39;m sorry to break your heart, but as a materialist you should know that a single individual will not make much of a difference for the struggle. It&#39;s a struggle of billions not one.

You&#39;re not going to go lead "the masses" (as the masses are in need of being led ) to "victory" whilst single-handedly defeating the bourgeois oppressors.

It&#39;s the workers that will emancipate themselves, not some group of supermen that will do the liberation.
I unequivocably agree. But you do them a diservice by depicting them as a weak, oppressed class. Capitalism has to go because of it has created the conditions for it to go. Not for some moral sake. At the end of the day, your trying to paint me as a class enemy because I invest the rest of my money in the share-market. Poor argument. Quite frankly your over-analysing it. You say that &#39;if such and such&#39; a person fits in this category they have these interests. Whilst CLASSES may exhibit this you are trying to exonerate it to an INDIVIDUAL.

Do you think that Marx told Engels he was a **** for owning a factory when Engels used much of the profit to support communist causes?

[ComradeRed]

Well, law changes see. Yeah I understand that new cases creates new precedents, it&#39;s not a hard concept.

But it changes the old precedents?



Ahh, now you add significant money. On &#036;3000 I made 300 in a month. I&#39;ve always had significant, you just recognized it when I had to state it explicitly.

So 10% of your "earnings" is surplus value. Interesting.

There is no "0-10% of wage being surplus value = proletariat; 10-45% = petit bourgeois; etc." litmus test, of course, but based on your reactions to things like class consciousness and the abolition of the market I&#39;d place you in the petit bourgeois class.



Obviously your talking in American dollars or British pounds. You would need 500,000 or less with 7% interest to live very comfortably. No I&#39;m talking about no working involved at all so you literally live off the interest. That&#39;s why I said "live off the interest", it&#39;s not a metaphor.

With 500000 at 7% interest, 35000 a year in interest, that&#39;s decent. But where do you get the 500000 from?



No, I was just pointing out how ridiculous Marx&#39;s class theory is today. Perhaps it is a little over simplified, generalizing society into either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat classes (at least in the capitalist mode of production).

However, that does not change that fact that...

1. Classes exist and struggle for supremacy.

2. This is an observable phenomena.

3. A Class is a group of humans with certain specific relations to the means of production, and consequently to each other.

Perhaps you think the latter most point is "ridiculous"?



You moron. I said the western PROLETARIAT does not exist. Obviously workers do exist. PROLETARIAT are the class, who having no means of production themselves sell their labour. Their wage reflects their cost of living. THEY DO NOT EXIST OR EXIST IN VERY SMALL QUANTITIES TODAY. Wow, no need to lose your temper your highness.

The proletariat, the industrial working class in the capitalist mode of production, does not exist?

Quite an assertion there. So thus everyone owns some means of production enough to live off of?

I personally don&#39;t own any capital. I don&#39;t know anyone who does.

So I must thus know all 50 proletariat in the U&#036;, right? :lol:

Oh wait, the proletariat are defined as the workers in modern industrialized societies.



Blah, blah blah. I live off my immediate wage. I invest the rest in the stock market (which I have yet to have withdrawn to actually make a profit). "Blah blah blah" you&#39;re petit bourgeois (see, it&#39;s no form of argument).



Marx, Lenin, Castro & numerous other &#39;communists&#39; studied law. Marx didn&#39;t study law, he studied Epicurean philosophy and then decided to study economics. Lenin and castro and "numerous other &#39;communists&#39;" turned out to not really be all that lefty.

There&#39;s nothing wrong with evaluating these individuals with the "tools of marxism".

Actually it&#39;s all ready been done with Marx: A Contribution to A Critique of Marx (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/marx_critique.htm).


Why do you want to study economics? Maybe because it interest you? But hang on, most economists are PETTY/CAPITALISTS therefore you must be too&#33; I&#39;m actually a physicist, philistine. Way to jump to off topic conclusions.



I unequivocably agree. But you do them a diservice by depicting them as a weak, oppressed class. Capitalism has to go because of it has created the conditions for it to go. Not for some moral sake. At the end of the day, your trying to paint me as a class enemy because I invest the rest of my money in the share-market. Poor argument. Quite frankly your over-analysing it. You say that &#39;if such and such&#39; a person fits in this category they have these interests. Whilst CLASSES may exhibit this you are trying to exonerate it to an INDIVIDUAL. Oh I&#39;m sorry, you&#39;re obviously an exception to the rule. You *are* the communist cause, Marx reincarnate.

How silly of me to question your superior status as a stock investor :lol:


Do you think that Marx told Engels he was a **** for owning a factory when Engels used much of the profit to support communist causes? Woops, I insulted the Marx incarnate? How silly of me.

No seriously, this analogy is comical at best.

[Pilar]

There are two answers to this question:

First, for those who wish to discuss what it&#39;s good for in the abstract, non-physical sense, who cares, as no such thing will exist.

Second, for those who wish to discuss what it&#39;s good for in the real, physical sense, such as the New York Stock Exchange and other buildings on Wall Street in NY, NY, and the similar places throughout the globe, it will be a great art museum or other indoor common area of beauty and strength, used for purpose that benefits human beings, not account balances.