Why do Marxists think that collectivising labor will make it any less miserable?>b-buh then it's not alienated anymore!!!!It's still work and it still sucks.
>>18457696why are you posting on the internet instead of chasing your dinner?
>>18457697I'm not an anprim, I just liked the meme for correctly pointing out that socializing labor doesn't make it suck any less.
>>18457696I never understood this either. the de-allienated labor system has a suspicious resemblance to the current one except all the laborers are magically happy now
>>18457696The idea is that if ownership is shared then you can decide to work for just a few hours a week and still survive. Workers are so poor and work such long hours because the owner of the means of production extracts as much excess value from their work as possible.
>>18457696Just wait until you get to the bit where he says the value of an object is the labor put into it. lmao
>>18457867It is true, producing the food you are eating right now is extremely laborious, so much so that 99% of whites are so weak and lazy they no longer farm or work with cattle. It is work exclusively thrown to latinx, they are the only ones breaking their back producing almost the entirety of the usa's food supply.I hope you are not stupid enough to think farm work is not extremely laborious and food isn't the most valuable object for human survival.
>>18457873If you're the same shitskin lolcow I think you are there's no point explaining to you how absolutely nothing you schizobabbled has anything to do with how ridiculous the labor theory of value is
>>18457696Because collectivizing labor implies repossessing the means of production, which implies repossessing the means to effectively govern yourself too. It's in the proletariat's class interest in the same way that it's in the bourgeoisie's interest to keep the power.For instance, you can't create whichever meme commune or anarcho-xyz you want if you have to be in your local factory at 7am everyday.>It's still work and it still sucks.It's qualitatively different from the sheer freedom it can grant you. It's like saying that being self-employed is the same as being an employee because it's also work. Studies on these topics have consistently proven this, most notably in co-ops.>>18457773alienation is not a psychological condition endured under capitalism, it's the impossibility for a worker to dispose of what he percieves as the most rational way to organize labor. That's why alienation from "species-being" is by far the most important (and controversial) part>>18457867price =/= valueThe marginalist framework (the one which brought about neoclassical economics) accepts that under a perfectly competitive environment, prices fluctuate around the common denominator : labor. Marx's LTV is a macro-value, not a subjective/micro value.
>>18457900>price =/= valueprice quite literally does equal value you midwit. I can spend years writing queer marxist poetry and its value, i.e. what people are willing to pay for it, will be zero or very low. Food will always have value because it always has demand but food that took very little labor to acquire doesn't mean it can't become extremely valuable
>>18457886>You must be that person I constantly fight against in my imagination You are insane and I hope your mental gets better. Finally, the theory of labour still holds, the most valuable things on human society require a maximum amount of effort to produce/create like food. So yes, things should be valued exactly based on the effort they take.
>>18457915This is genuinely the type of mental retardation that pops up anytime you try to have a serious conversation or debate on marxism. MacCarthyism and the fall of the wall really fucked any serious engagement you could get on these topics.>price quite literally does equal value you midwitNo, the LTV is simply not a price theory. You're like these retards who think that Marx is doing a moral critique by calling wage-labor exploitation when it was the default economic term of this kind of work prior to the mid 1950s.>Food will always have value because it always has demand No shit sherlock. Marx's LTV operates within the premise that the good is sold, and that its production is in competition. Spending 10 000 hours making mudpie means nothing if nobody wants to buy it.>but food that took very little labor to acquire doesn't mean it can't become extremely valuableActually it can hardly do so if you have competition and no exclusive monopoly on the means to produce it. Arguing against this is a bit silly when even the marginalists recognize that this kind of subjective valuation tends to even out around the cost of production in a competitive environment where the goods are sold (aka, Marx's LTV). Does that mean that it's impossible ? No, of course not. But rather, this means that it is very unlikely and will tend to even out.More generally, the debate around which value is "correct" is a complete meme since Sraffa's magnum opus. Neither the LTV or the marginalist perfectly capture """value""", and said-value can also be reconstituted with any physical quantity of good which makes the whole attempt redundant. The neoclassical framework offers tool to understand micro-economic analysis better, whilst the LTV (or any macro framework) will inevitably capture general tendencies better. Both simply operate on a different level of analysis.
>>18457939>So yes, things should be valued exactly based on the effort they take.By who?
>>18458056Well, Communism is supposed to have the workers come into a council and intelligently agree on a value because they have direct experience with that line of work. So them, a nation wide union for that type of work would set the value.
>>18458096Oh my science that sounds amazing. Well good luck with that. I'm sorry I'm just not buying your queer poetry book though
>>18457696Just vote to work less lol.
>democracy sux as>let's make every workplace a democracy
>>18458551>let's make every workplace a democracyExcept you can't vote on anything that matters, like what you work on, your quotas, your shift schedule, or even your boss.
>>18457900But in practice it never does. The government just elects a party member and they become your boss. Only difference being that if you quit your job instead of being unemployed you're liquidated by the governments enforcers.
>>18458096>councilBwhahahaha. The council in Beijing and Moscow doesn't care about you bitch boi. You never get permission to see them and even if you do they just freeze your pleas in bureaucratic hell until your allotted travel time is expired and you have to go back losing fingers to factory machines.
>>18458574
Communism had a moment in the 20th century because in some countries like Vietnam, almost everyone worked in agriculture and land was unequally distributed (Pareto principle). Now that the workforce isn't concentrated in such a way and Marxism has repeatedly failed at accomplishing any economic objectives, the only communist countries are capitalist countries with communist window dressing to justify having a sole "vanguard" party in charge.
>It's in the proletariat's class interest in the same way that it's in the bourgeoisie's interest to keep the power.Killing off the productive people out of envy and deliberately triggering a famine is something I do not believe aligns with the greater good>It's qualitatively different from the sheer freedom it can grant youFreedom is clearly measurable under communism The Soviet Union regularly shot striking workers and shot the unemployed to maintain full employment, there's no credible case to be made that the freedom you offer is superior to what we currently possess. The purpose of a system is what it does, not what it claims to do.>alienation is not a psychological condition endured under capitalismYour argument about alienation is pretty circular and nonscientific... you're just stating communism is rational on a matter of opinion when the history of communist countries clearly contradicts thatPrice=/= ValueI also never understood the semantic point commies make about price. Engels, Marx were pretty explicit about price signals not existing under communism and history shows it was a disaster that led to famines Without prices it's not possible for society to make rational choices on how much to consume and how much to producewe saw this in the Soviet Union where price controls led to consistent shortages because producers could never predict demand
>>18457977You had to be quite dense not to realize that revolutions of 1989 and actions of communism discredited communism big time your ideas were tried and failed everything you said was proven false by history, pseud
Most communists nowadays want to live in the pastoral ideal and be gay. Not be industrious and reach for the stars.
>>18457696A major factor contributing to depression is the feeling of not being in charge... Trains your brain that no matter what you do you will be stuck. Therefore do not try anything
>peasants I mean fellow comrades pissed that we set 1 food at $5>get_fucked.jpg>nobody can afford food and farmers cannot afford to grow food>not my problem I'm rich err I mean a brain worker>riots>oh_shit_what_do.jpg>label rioters as "counterrevolutionaries" (lol)If only there were some mechanism to determine a fair price that was nimble enough to respond to dynamic needs... Commies are fucking idiots lmao
>>18458096>Well, Communism is supposed to have the workers come into a council and intelligently agree on a value because they have direct experience with that line of work. So them, a nation wide union for that type of work would set the value.The Soviet Union tried something similar.They abandoned it quickly because it made workers very lazy.Trotsky, in fact, wrote that punitive authority was necessary to make workers more productive and his side won out. That's why the USSR adopted taylorism, along with just about every communist country.
>>18459215But I thought the workers were allowed to determine their own conditions under communism?
>>18459218The excuse that commies use is that the government represents the workers, therefore the government deciding everything counts as the workers deciding everything.
>>18459137>Killing off the productive people out of envy >Freedom is clearly measurable under communismThank you for demonstrating what I was saying in >>18457977. It's genuinely impossible to have any serious discussions about communism or marxism because it just inevitably descends into shitflinging about the USSR or whichever tankie ideal burgers think it is.>you're just stating communism is rational on a matter of opinion when the history of communist countries clearly contradicts that>ctrl + f "communism">doesn't even appear in that sentenceI'm saying that alienation is related to whichever "rational" system can be implemented. A bourgeois in the 18th century was effectively alienated by the nobility. A worker in the USSR was also alienated by the bureaucracy. This is just poor reading skills anon.>I also never understood the semantic point commies make about pricetopkek you'd perhaps understand it if you knew the bare minimum. The common counterargument to the LTV is that prices are set in relation to subjective demand. Marx does not deny this.>Engels, Marx were pretty explicit about price signals not existing under communismNot prices, but the law of value. They're 2 distinct things.>>18459148>dooooood da USSR fell doooood did u not get the info man !!!!
>>18459413I'm sorry but if the flagships of your ideology consistently sink or backtrack, it's going to reflect baldy on your ideology.
>>18459890ERMMM THIS IS ACTUALLY THE CAPITALISTS' FAULT SOMEHOW
>>18459890Which flagship lol ? The USSR was supported by commies until we discovered what went on there. China was supported too until we discovered the truth. These are not "flagships".>>18459911>the Cold War did not happenIntriguing phenomena...
>>18460114Then what Communist countries are there? Or is it all vaporware no true Scotsman shit?
>>18460114Communists idolize China to this day and Soviet nostalgia is still very real to the point of delusion.
>>18460114Blaming capitalists for the fall of communism is an admission that communism doesn't work.
>>18460303Funnily enough, China is sincerely not communisthttps://youtu.be/U1EmWirNF6o?si=yjnXltQ2HY_chJ4XThat's not a video by some schizo China hater, it is by an actual Commie who has made non stop video on Communist theory, history, and praxis for almost a decade. He seethes that China is not Commie.>Tl;dw China wants to be the new usa, the new leader of the world, and unironically, they see themselves as good, they want to be seen as the savior of the world.>>18459207I am a "Commie" but still come to 4chan and enjoy seeing criticisms against Communism because actual Communist circles don't allow discussion or debate. Your post for example is true, the "brain workers" are everywhere, streamer faggots that wouldn't work a single day in their lives and would try to be the leaders and philosophers of a Communist america or europe. They want everyone else to be below them, but then they would still try to claim that we are all equal and thisnis a class struggle against capitalism and we need to sacrifice our lives for the cause!The YouTuber I posted, socialism4all, always brags about how he actually used to do manual labor. But after becoming a YouTuber and streamer he lives off donations, he doesn't need to work a single day in his life anymore and doesn't allow people to debate him, you have to pay to even say hi to him. That's imo why Communism always collapses. The first generation, like in the USSR, sincerely believes in Communism; their children grow up unchallenged as political elite and they stop caring about Communism and don't even pay lip service to it, seeing actual workers as beneath them, so they devolve into capitalism.What pains me the most is that there is sincerely no ideology that's actually good and beneficial to the common man. Noz capitalism is not good, no matter how angry you are at communism, capitalism is the shit that has dragged us all into modern slavery and capitalism has destroyed white nations. But Communism is no better.
>>18460406No country has ever been sincerely communist because they've been countries with governments, and communism is supposed to have neither.
>>18460406>>18460471And America isn't capitalist because the government gives benefits to corporations instead of allowing them to compete in a free market.Hitler wasn't a fascist too.
>>18457696I don't understand. How are you supposed to run a society if no one does work?
