/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan

(53.09 KB 651x679 cat reading marx.jpg)
For New Anons and Lurkers: FAQ, rules, and reading list Comrade 08/05/2019 (Mon) 07:32:55 No. 8537
Guide for new Anons: https://bunkerchan.xyz/.media/72a78f39a9a53439bf2bdc6aeb272f7e-imagepng.png Groups: https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org http://steamcommunity.com/groups/leftypol http://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=leftypol Leftybooru: https://leftypol.booru.org FAQ: >How can you call yourselves leftist politically incorrect? /leftypol/ posters are allowed to voice opinions that offend liberals, SJWs, and so on. All sects on the left are allowed to post on /leftypol/, leading to plenty of fighting and shitflinging between leftists, which other forums might ban. However, this was only a minor consideration in the naming of /leftypol/. Since the concept is simply a leftist version of /pol/, the entire name of /pol/ was retained. >I'm not a leftist can I post here? Non-leftists can come here to ask questions. Board moderation here is more focused on maintaining a good board index, so non-leftists have to be on better behavior as OP than they do as participants in someone else's thread. If you aren't b8ing or shitposting, your thread is likely to stay up. >Are you liberals? Are you SJWs? Do you like Clinton? Are you all Zionists??? No liberals here. We hate the Democrat party. As for Israel, leftism is anti-Zionist. It is not anti-Jew. Unlike /pol/, /leftypol/ fully supports Palestinians, and doesn't think they're "mudslimes". Pretending to be an SJW or Zionist will very likely get you banned. >Why did you leave /pol/ and why does this board exist? /leftypol/ existed to help the 8chan community focus on leftist topics without being slid or flooded to death, and now has moved to Bunkerchan as constant alt-right chud murderers and Qanon boomers killed 8chan. >Do you support gun control? While posters on /leftypol/ have varying stances on gun control (training requirements, mental health checks, etc.), they are overwhelmingly in favor of arming the proletariat. >Do you support "national" socialism? No.
Edited last time by pask on 03/22/2020 (Sun) 14:10:40.
(11.57 KB 572x417 capturejap1.png)
>>358805 No Monopoly Super-profits come at the expense of profits from other capitalists. These capitalists will then fail and the super-profits of Monopolists will go away as well. Again profits do not come from machines, they come from labour, in your example profits will at best correspond to population growth. If the capitalists can set prices of commodities as they like without any interference from competitors, then it makes no difference whether the capitalists over-charge for commodities or weather they lower wages. The capitalist class can make profits from workers because they don't have to pay workers full price for their labour power, they cannot make profits on machines because they have to pay full price on machines. Competition is not the only factor that drives down profits, if capitalist increase automation they will decrease the relative share of the "exploitable component" (workers) and hence profits will decline. Capitalists would than seek to increase exploitation, but that too is not a fix because if you exploit people too hard they can't reproduce their labour power, and that will cause profits to decline as well. There is no eternal profit and there is no way capitalist can bypass the laws of motion of capitalism. Stop saying that workers are a cost, to capitalists, workers are the ones that are forced to pay capitalists in terms of surplus. If the source of surplus shrinks then so do profits, just have look at Japan (pic)
>>358951 If you switch to a socialist mode of production with planning, and have solved the contradiction of class society, profits go to zero and the surplus that workers produce can either be invested in labour saving devices or in leisure time.
>>358951 >No Monopoly Super-profits come at the expense of profits from other capitalists. True. >in your example profits will at best correspond to population growth. Why? Explain in practical terms, not just by saying that machines can't create profit and that less workers means less total profit. I know the theory. Explain why keeping prices and wages the same but lowering the cost of production does not increase profit in this scenario.
>>358951 >No Monopoly Super-profits come at the expense of profits from other capitalists. This only happens if some of the Capitalists can't sell all their commodities because of limited demand. If instead this expansion of production corresponds with an increase in demand then all Capitalists could sell all products, and super profit could be had without any capitalist paying the price.
>>358805 <Cartels are fundamentally nothing else than a means resorted to by the capitalist mode of production for the purpose of holding back the fatal fall of the rate of profit in certain branches of production Well that's only half the story, this was a critique of Bernstein who said that this was a method of adaptation of capital to prevent the fall in the rate of profit indefinitely. >Cartels are fundamentally nothing else than a means resorted to by the capitalist mode of production for the purpose of holding back the fatal fall of the rate of profit in certain branches of production. What method do cartels employ for this end? That of keeping inactive a part of the accumulated capital. The accumulated capital is the highly important part here. Capitalism is a victim of its own success. It has developed technologies so good that it has gone beyond scarcity. However, too high supply lowers prices which lowers profits. That's why they have to inactivate capital. A good example of this is the US agriculture industry. To maintain profitability the US government buys up unsold food, poisons it, and destroys it. This inactivation of capital is necessary since it prevents the fall in the rate of profit, at least for a time since as Rosa Luxembourg writes: >When the outlets of disposal begin to shrink, and the world market has been extended to its limit and has become exhausted through the competition of the capitalist countries – and sooner or later that is bound to come – then the forced partial idleness of capital will reach such dimensions that the remedy will become transformed into a malady, and capital, already pretty much “socialised” through regulation, will tend to revert again to the form of individual capital. In the face of the increased difficulties of finding markets, each individual portion of capital will prefer to take its chances alone. At that time, the large regulating organisations will burst like soap bubbles and give way to aggravated competition. This is what is meant that monopoly super-profits are at the expense of capitalists. All that held back capital is preventing competition and thus further concentration of capital into fewer hands. Take the example of Russia and OPEC. Just like in the case of US agriculture, oil companies have to limit production in order to be profitable. OPEC has tried to do this as much as possible, but this cannot go on forever. The US has been able to expand its shale oil production, effectively releasing more capital into the market. That's why countries like Russian and Saudi Arabia now have to break off any production limiting deals since the holding back of capital now harms them individually. Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.
>>359009 >Why? Explain in practical terms, not just by saying that machines can't create profit and that less workers means less total profit. I know the theory. Explain why keeping prices and wages the same but lowering the cost of production does not increase profit in this scenario. I already answered this if the capitalist class is able to artificially set commodity prices they are just reducing wages by other means. It doesn't really matter whether you take from the workers pay check or whether you take it at the cash-register in the shops, this is just a accounting trick. It's an an increase in exploitation, if you keep increasing exploitation then workers will not be able to reproduce their labour-power and the rate of profit is going to decline, because it degrades people birth rates will go down as well and then the capitalist class has fewer workers it can exploit and that's a negative spiral. I don't really know where you got hung up.
>>359091 >This only happens if some of the Capitalists can't sell all their commodities because of limited demand. If instead this expansion of production corresponds with an increase in demand then all Capitalists could sell all products, and super profit could be had without any capitalist paying the price. Yeah I already addressed this,the profit rate would then correspond to population growth. But that is just a abstract thought experiment that requires profits to be balanced across al sectors, and have no environmental constraints. That just never happens in the real world. In the real world you do not get balanced profit rates across all sectors and you have environmental constraints and the result is population decline and a falling rate of profit.
>>359605 I thought it over, is this the logic your using? Say I can produce an apple with 2 dollars in wages and 1 dollars in machinery. I sell this apple for 5 dollars All my workers get paid two dollars per hour and work 8 hours, meaning they end up with 16 dollars. I then make a better machine that allows me to produce 5 apples with 2 dollars in wages and 1 dollar in machinery. I continue to sell this apple for 5 dollars. Workers can still buy the same amount of apples with the same wages. My profit rates goes up if I can increase demand by population growth or advertising, or more likely, they stay exactly the same with the extra apples being tossed out as if I never actually had any innovation. Profits don't grow without growth in demand here, but they don't fall either, expect the problem is that with each growth in automation less and less workers are needed in the production process, meaning more and more unemployment and less and less demand. The only way to solve it would be to pay workers to do useless jobs or give money for nothing, which locks profit back into corresponding with population growth because you are literally paying people to buy from you. Is that the idea? There is no falling rate of profit, but profit rates are instead just stagnant?
>>360093 good grief, now i know where you hang up is. if your apple company makes the same amount of money this year as last year then your profit has gone down.
>>360255 No? Lets assume demand is static. I make 5 apples with 5 dollars, and sell them all for 2 dollars a piece. I make 10 dollars, a 100% rate of profit over investment, in total earning 5 dollars profit. I make 10 apples with 5 dollars, and sell 5 of them for 2 dollars a piece, throwing out the rest. I make 10 dollars, a 100% rate of profit over investment, in total earning 5 dollars profit. Rate of profit is the same.
>>360776 These kinds of thought experiments aren't particularly useful, nothing is really static, and you just ignored to ad the money you made from one year to the capital stock of the following year. Anyway you have to look at the economy as a hole. What you have to realise here is that there is not just a falling rate of profit due to technological competition but also do the rate of accumulation. And the measures you advocate just shift causes of the falling rate of profit around: you reduce competition at the expense of an increase in rate of accumulation.
since we're anonymous let's use that for the sake of asking a question: do you lads talk about books you haven't read? i'm fairly new to leftypol i'll admit. in my short time here it appears to me that whenever i talk to people about the books they mention (and often cite) the majority miss details that couldn't be more obvious were you to have even quickly skimmed through. this is highly frustrating because these people will create threads, comment and compare, and even critique things they have probably only seen a youtube video/read the wikipedia article thereof.
>>375241 You know to be honest I used to read alot more, but now I have to work so much that the only theory I'm really able to regurgitate is stuff I can quickly remind myself of. I read capital and a bunch of secondary literature on it some years ago, but I'll be dammed if I can remember much of it. It's definitely a problem, but there are some things that are fairly easy to convince people of: universal health care, stagnant wages, inequality, etc. The bigger problem I have is despooking boomers on race and nationality; but younger people are less racist, especially those who work abroad. What I mean by this is Mao was right. You have to go out of your room at some point and that necessarily means cutting down on how much you read.
>>375323 >but now I have to work so much this is unlucky. i have managed to find time to read even with a job, political engagements, and a decent social life. but i understand that there are times where you either don't have the time or you don't have the energy. still, you wouldn't be the type of person to get into conversations about books you've never even touched. these are the people i am chiefly bored/annoyed with.
>>375241 I've perfected it into an art.
>>375241 What teh shit is a book?
big book
>>375241 From Marx to Lenin, from Lenin to Mao, from Mao to Cockshott, I've never read a single one of their works, in fact I don't even know most of their ideas, I don't even know what communism is, I just post here to try and look smart
>>375241 This is extremely common behavior across leftist circles, online and offline, and directly proportional to the notoriety of the work or author in question. Your observations are correct, though it goes further: there are a great number of people here who have convinced themselves they are literate on an author or a work while they are really not. These same people prefer slinging sophistry over humility. Marx' writing is the primary victim here. It's always transparent to people have put in the legwork. Or even leafed through the related work. Read fucking Marx. >>375323 I have given up on further progressing in philosophy, because I just don't have the time anymore between subsistence and passion. Every single topic, let alone field, feels like it is endlessly expanding in every direction. This is miserable enough for something abstract like philosophy of logic, but when it comes to any philosophy that seeks to change the world the pitfalls are many and very real. That's to say: don't beat yourself up over it. What sticks in your memory seems to me to be intuitive by that very fact, and that intuitive understanding is more useful than any number of quotations.
>>384723 >Every single topic, let alone field, feels like it is endlessly expanding in every direction. Fucking this. There's too much of everything. I get overwhelmed frequently :(
Here's the latest 'Easy Reading' version of Einstein's 'Why Socialism'. This edition features corrections of intent and a more pro-science angle.
Here's a piece from prole.org that I though was a great beginner piece, 'What is Capitalism and How Do We Break Free From It?'
>>385595 oh good grief this is horrible its full of idealism, anti-communism, and contains ridiculess phrases like <In the course of revolutionary struggle, everyday people dramatically change their personalities. I tried to rewrite it, i can't say that i succeeded making good propaganda, but it's a little better.
Anybody have volume 2 of this?
should i delete all the pol tier memes and infographs off of my pc?
>>393410 keep them if they're funny (to dorks like us) but not if you intent to use them as legitimate agitprop.
>>393467 For context, I downloaded them when I believed lots of pol rubbish
>>393490 Keep them so we can laugh at them
>>393490 If they cause pain, get rid of them.
>>8537 are workers a mean of production since you need workers to produce?
>>394983 By means of production, we mean things like factories, not people.
>>395001 so what about living non persons like animals, are they a mean of production?
>>395031 We won't collectivize your donkey if that's what you're asking. At least I don't see any reason to do so.
>>395031 Yes, if they are used to produce something for others.
(88.65 KB 784x708 concern hmm umm uhh.jpg)
>>41840 Anybody feel like seeding?
Does anyone have a complete PDF or epub file of "The Paradox of Plenty" by Douglas Boucher?
houses are not a mean of production right? so are landlords then really part of the bourgeoisie?
>>400509 bourgeoisie are made up of landlords, who live off rent, and capitalists, who live off surplus labor.
>>400509 No, houses are not a means of production. Basically, the means of production are anything which can be used to make commodities (things to be sold) from raw materials (wood, metal ores, sand, etc.). In the modern context, this means machinery in factories, mines and forests such as conveyor-belt mechanisms, diggers and combine harvesters. The workers themselves don't own the tools they use or the profit they generate by using them. That is the biggest contradiction in Capitalism and why leftists often repeat the phrase 'Seize the means of production!' so much. From 'Marxists.org': Means of Production The tools (instruments) and the raw material (subject) you use to create something are the means of production. >If we examine the whole process from the point of view of its result, the product, it is plain that both the instruments and the subject of labour, are means of production, and that the labour itself is productive labour. <Karl Marx <Capital: The Labour-Process And The Process Of Producing Surplus-Value
if you dont extract surplus value but still indirectly profit from it (being the child or wife of a porkie) are you still part of the bourgeoisie?
>>401923 No as you must own the means of production to be bourgeoisie
>>401923 Yes, though you aren't directly responsible for wrongdoing. >>402751 incorrect, especially since landlords are also bourgeois
(263.61 KB 1000x1000 external-content.duckduckgo.com.png)
>>402805 This is blurring the line between idealistism and materialism. Housing and Shelter aren't means of production, technically, but, they are property where surplus value can be extracted. The owner of the property is bourgeoisie but the family members are not until they inherent it or own it in some way. They do not actually own the property and therefore are not bourgeoisie in the sense of property ownership for the surplus extraction of labor....That's my take on it anyways, what did Marx have to say about such a thing? Anything? I would say that, from a cultural standpoint, this people will exhibit bourgeois behavioral patterns, however.
>>403478 so your a bourgeoisie once you extract surplus value? then what about kulaks? they just own means of production without doing that, if your a bourgeoisie once you own the means of production (regardless whether or not you extract surplus value) and landlords are bourgeoisie then what about people who own there own house but dont extract surplus value from it?
>>404020 No, you are bourgeois when you own property in absentee that is for the purpose of the generation of profit. Kulaks are petty bourgeois. Again, this is just how I understand it.
I'm not sure if this's a correct thread/board for this, but I've digitalized and translated a work written by Felix Dzerzhinsky because it made me feel, it's a quick 2.5 page long read, however I've never translated anything as long as this and I'm not a native speaker, so if anyone notices anything that sounds funny, let me know, so I can correct it.
commiebois I have a question: how do you estimate use value? i just finished the 2nd chapter of Capital, does Marx say something about use value later?

Delete
Report

no cookies?