[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)


IRC Chat





File: 1678650145933.jpg (144 KB, 1148x1630, boringdystopia-11p4vhm.jpg)

 No.467069[Last 50 Posts]

Realistically how do you reconcile lack of gun control in the school shooter era?
These kind of incidents can't go one forever without some kind of push back. Can gun rights preserved without having to live with school shootings?


Marx said that the organized proletariat should be armed, he didn't say give teenagers guns to shoot up schools.

In Belarus for example most households have one or more Kalashnikov-AK47s, but they lock that shit up and don't let their kids play with it, they don't have a problem with school shootings.


The Uvalde shooting was done by legally obtained guns. As well as a ton of other mass shootings.


File: 1678681995019.jpg (16.64 KB, 256x197, 082d546b724289d86d5ed4a0e5….jpg)



File: 1678682951800.pdf (3.98 MB, 232x300, usss-ntac-maps-2016-2020.pdf)

It's convenient to say that they are just some mentally ill people who will try to hurt others are always going to exist, but even psychopaths can be kept anchored from finding an anti-social outlet through stable, healthy living conditions and a loving family. The US Secret Service admitted in a recent study that the majority of mass shootings happen following a major financial or housing crisis for the perpetrator:
<While nearly three-quarters (n = 130, 72%) of the attackers experienced a financial stressor sometime prior to their attack, over half (n = 100, 56%) did so within five years. These financial stressors, which occurred across life domains, included an inability to sustain employment, loss of civil judgments, bankruptcies, evictions, foreclosures, and losses of income. For some, the financial stressor was experienced by family members whose financial stability affected the attacker directly.
<Over one-third of the attackers (n = 70, 39%) had experienced unstable housing within 20 years of their attacks. This included those who had experienced homelessness at some point, as well as those who had faced foreclosure proceedings, had an impending eviction, or had stayed in temporary housing after being kicked out by family or romantic partners. Of the 31 attackers (17%) who were experiencing these tenuous situations at the time of the attack, 22 of them were homeless, including 3 who targeted other members of the homeless population in their attacks.

Remove the potential for situations where people have nothing left to lose and most of the mass shootings will stop. Just as Aristotle said, poverty is the parent of revolution and crime. The lethality of the weapon used to perpetrate that crime is only tangential.


>he fell for the glowie psyop
Do a little critical thinking for a second. do you think a country with three guns per citizen would just have mass shootings where… nothing is really even achieved?
>yeah bro lemme just go shoot up this subway because I’m so fucking unhinged


File: 1678702454125.jpg (85.41 KB, 828x662, IMG_20230313_171322_922.jpg)



This is cute and all but kids getting executing is still going pull more heartstrings than a genocide that most Americans don't even know happened.


I agree but you still can't deny that simply banning at least ARs wouldn't be a more direct and efficient solution. Its not like ARs have even been available for all that long, only since what, the 2000s?
I don't want to see ARs banned but you cannot deny the power of the imagery of slaughtered kids to move the public either.
Ironically it's only been the recalcitrance of the GOP that's keep any serious gun laws from being passed. And they want guns to maintain capitalism and settler colonialism.


It's ironic that you post that because Manifest Destiny and the resulting Native genocide was only possible with the second amendment.
No way could settlers have maintained their private property without firearms. Really the government was peripheral in Manifest Destiny. It was the thousand of armed settlers that made it happen.
That's another thing the left needs to reconcile when reflexively defending the second amendment. That the right is almost entirely exercised by capitalist and settlers maintaining the system, and any and all attempts by the left to arm themselves have been twarted. In other words on a material level, leftists that defend the second amendment are really only defending capitalists' right to bear arms.


>Fart sniffing


The early United States having an army was only possible with the second amendment. That's how the army constituted itself - a small officer corps that received commissions basically by knowing the right people and the buddy system, and then they find whatever young men want to kill an Indian and take his shit. The permanent imperial army of the national security state wasn't a thing.

If the gun was about fighting tyrants, that failed a long time ago. Of course, the net effect of gun control is to disarm selected populations. Warrior aristocracies are not concerned about the people holding guns, so long as those guns are never directed towards genuinely rebellious aims, and the army has artillery and everything it needs to besiege the people. Everything about the national security state was in preparation for a permanent siege of humanity and the elimination of the residuum, rather than any legitimate purpose for the army.

Anyone who looks like they would amount to an oppositional force has been disarmed and is marked down. The people passionate about gun control usually are the people who want some petty-managerial privilege over the residuum rather than any legitimate concern about gun violence. It has long been understood in the city that taking away guns doesn't stop much, but part of inner-city life is the intercine struggle for life which pits all against all. The winners of that arrangement can select who should and shouldn't be in jail, then proceed to make it so by insinuating it endlessly - as long as it's not them. You talk to a lot of the better off black people and they'll say proudly some uyghas just need to go to jail, and it won't be them. For those who are genuinely oppressed, a gun isn't going to change their situation if they are marked down and constrained before shots are fired. You would have had to prevent that network of intelligence from forming, or form counter-networks that can be relatively free from the taint of imperial influence. Those who truly oppose the ruling system do not get far, unless they choose to retire from public life and find whatever they can in this cursed world. Anyone trying to capture the state from that position is hopeless and clearly unaware of what they signed away by allowing the mere existence of the national security state.


One way of looking at it is:
<The genocide happened because the colonials had too much firepower.

Another way of looking at this is saying:
<the Native Americans didn't have enough firepower.

The second one is about empowerment, and often that's one step too far. Going along with a moral value that it's wrong to mass murder a bunch of people that's easy. But making those people powerful enough that they can't be victimized or coerced anymore. That's an uncomfortable loss of control, and it means that those people might do something that's really unacceptable (relatively speaking), and then it would have to be accepted anyway because there is no power to override their volition.


>The people passionate about gun control usually are the people who want some petty-managerial privilege over the residuum rather than any legitimate concern about gun violence.
So the millions of families that send their children to public school and have to live with this new horror are now all latte sipping liberals that are too good to own their own firearms and are just toadies of the state.
My how the left has fallen. Do you not understand the type of family that sends their children to public school kek.
You're inadvertently proving my point. The 2nd amendment has never been used to arm exploited populations.

Looks like there's no actual leftists in this thread. Everyone here is only interested in "owning the libs" and moral preening. I'm sure that feels good but your memes and witty barbs are going to fall flat during the next mass school shooting.


Your whole argument is purely an appeal to emotion lol


>muh settler colonialism
who is being settled and colonized in the US right now? wtf are you talking about?

This is such a non-argument. The second amendment was used by Black Panthers and is the reason why California has such restrictions on gun ownership now - exploited populations were using the 2A!

Even if they were not you'd have to be an idiot to think that the working class being disarmed is good actually.


>who is being settled and colonized in the US right now?
Slavery is still legal in the US. And all the settler holdings are still maintained by the American state. Settler colonialism is continual process that provides original capital for capitalism.
I already made my case in my OP and other posts. Of which none of you engaged with, because you don't have anything.
You think "owning the libs" on a Mongolian cricket racing forum is some kind of win but the public that is worried about this real life problem is not going to understand your "epic memes" much less be persuaded by them.


File: 1678748117214.jpg (19.75 KB, 326x352, what.jpg)

>And all the settler holdings are still maintained by the American state.
This sounds like unhinged schizoid drivel but I'm curious to hear you justify it with examples.


>This is such a non-argument. The second amendment was used by Black Panthers and is the reason why California has such restrictions on gun ownership now - exploited populations were using the 2A!
Why do you keep proving my point for me. I said before, any attempt by anyone with revolutionary potential to arm themselves has been stopped.
The Panthers are infamously no more. If any other left wing, or hell even liberal progressive group, attempted the same at any sort of significant scale, would meet the same fate.
The right wing, who you slavishly run cover for, is not protecting the right to bare arms for you, or anyone with socialist sympathies. Yet you childishly pillory anyone that points this obvious fact out.


I guess you're unfamiliar with how the United States was founded. Or why we have Native American reservations.
It's really not surprising you're so historically illiterate.


Yes and all that stuff happened well over a century ago. You need to point to "settler holdings still maintained by the American state" today if you wish to justify your claim that the US is any sort of settler-colonial society in the contemporary period.


It's the entire United States. Colonialism is a process that never ended. As I said before the US state enslaves right now, today, the same people it enslaved and ethnically cleansed a century ago.
I can already tell I'm talking to some recovering /pol/yp that's low key triggered so we can just drop this debate now. It's not what I came to talk about. I came to talk about school shooting and gun control.


So you refuse to provide any examples to justify your assertion then?


To you, yes.


The presumption of unhinged schizoid drivel shall remain standing then.


Yup, you won my spooked friend. Can you pack up your butthurt and get out of my thread so I can go back to discussing OP?


>my thread
this is public property little booj


File: 1678766591697.jpg (41.92 KB, 542x535, spookbuster.jpg)

>can't defend owned argument
If anyone's spooked here, it's the one so detached from reality that they think they live in 19th century America and everyone around them is still benefiting from the Homestead Act.


>OP wants to talk about the subject in the OP.
Well blow me down.


My Gawd you go on like a communist Karen.


>Muh Q Anon conspiracy theory
The last refuge of a scoundrel.


>Op is ghey tho


That's right comrade dunning kruger. Real revolutionaries(tm) sit around smoking weed all day while parroting the same positions as your average MSNBC talking head.


>I have no arguments and I must scream.
t. midwit


There's at least 3 implied arguments in the post you quoted. You're just too dim to pick up on things unless it's spelled out for you.
>Literally like talking to a slow 7 year old.


File: 1678901921518.png (22.32 KB, 714x331, mass shooters 2 out of 4 o….png)

>Was Marx wrong about gun control.


Workers need to be armed.
Workers need to organize. Workers need to be ready to clash when it's time to clash. The gov't cannot be trusted disarming the public, and the American workers should be prepared to resist any such attempt by every possible means - even legal representation. Exhaust peaceful means comprehensively, and prepare for war.

I used to admire the UK's system, but now I think that country's rather sad frankly. Make no mistake that they have reduced the amount of mass shootings and gun violence in their country… but more-and-more, their country also just seems like a limp "little America" whose population are even more hopeless than we are, and whose politicians seem dead-set on destroying what few advantages the common Briton had over us backwards Americans.

Now, America's government does awful things. America's government does these awful pointless wars - Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq. The American gov't did the Patriot Act, America crushed unions, America sells out its publicly funded infrastructure, America scrapped welfare, America let guys like the Sacklers go free after killing so many of us with their murderous scheme, America has this huge surveillance state which runs all these little "experiments" on the public… and as pathetic as Americans have been in resisting these things, this patheticness still does not make me trust the American gov't any more to keep a just peace. They do not need our help hacking away at our liberty, corrupting our democracy (laugh all you want, even socialists used to win elections in America), and stomping on us.

I am not a casualty of school shooting, but I wish I was. If I had been shot dead in kindergarten by some psycho I would never have grown to understand the workings of this country. I would never understand why these hopeless men with downward trajectories go out and do these horrible things. I can sympathize with them on some level, and that is sickening.

American workers need power, and understanding, to deal with their economic predicament and the corruption of their government. Guns are not a substitute for this, but rather a necessary supplement.


Most mass shootings in America are committed by legal adults, yeah. In fact, they're usually over 25, and even a disproportionate amount of school shooters specifically are also legal adults.

Idk who needs to hear this, but the mainstream narrative is a crock of shit. To say new 21+ age limits on gun purchases are idiotic is being generous - it's an effort to shift blame to the young, and disarm young people because the present-day NRA is basically a club for reactionary boomers & they're relatively ok with that. The deadliest mass shooting in American history was perpetrated by a 60-something year-old man in Las Vegas. Although I oppose new restrictions on guns now, it's completely true that the NRA has these political faggots in their pocket.

Having a gun ownership cutoff of 18-and-under would, I shit you not, prevent more mass shootings than a 21-and-up limit would.


I'm secretly right, you just don't realize it.
I kneel




This should have been greentexted.
>I'm secretly right, you just don't realize it.


File: 1678937970505.jpeg (45.97 KB, 616x680, FrSNWbtX0AA3E9m.jpeg)



this image is fascist libertarian republican neonazi propaganda


>The truth is fascist libertarian republican neonazi propaganda


4chan.org (invented trumpist neonazism)
socialist rifle association (red fashists)
fortnite (libertarian brainwashing software)
>the truth
something you deplorables don't have enough brain cells to grasp
where's your college degree redneck?


This only proves that americans is a consumption driven country. One of their countless hobbies consist in collecting guns.
>Southeast Asia
If you consider them secure, I have bad news for you.


>Has only ever been in America


Still doesn't address the problem of school shooting in particular.


Don't you have a DSA meeting to attend to?


>My funny quips can counter the image of first graders having their guts splattered all over their schools.
Grow up.


>I'm happy to wave around the image of dead children in order to disempower people via a vis an oligarchal state, all while presenting myself as taking the moral high road.


Ukraine is a lost cause, so the glowniqqers got new talking points


>Parents aren't terrified of school shootings now, it's a psyop.
t. childless NEET


>I'm going to gossip about my critic instead of rebutting him.


File: 1679093127163.jpg (342.32 KB, 1080x1277, IMG_20230318_054457.jpg)

I know. You really couldn't design a better psyop, could you.


File: 1679093782372.webm (2.62 MB, 608x1080, 1677696185689544.webm)

>No way could a country sliding toward fascism produce embittered school shooters, it's all a government conspiracy!


>America is sliding towards fascism so we have to ban guns
TYT tier


>Hey guise I think these school shooting might cause the public to support sweeping forms of gun control.
>S-s-s-shut up, g-g-glowie, p-p-psyop
The "left" everyone




File: 1679094750962.jpg (70.54 KB, 1080x343, IMG_20230318_061144.jpg)

I mean, you could just be retarded. This is leftychan, afterall


>give us your guns, we'll protect you
-the people the 2nd amendment is designed to protect against


It's not though
This was before Uvallde, regardless once there a a shooting with really good footage it'll be game over. Also over 50% is a majority numb nuts.


>denying that the US isn't sliding toward fascism
/pol/ tier


Liberal tier assertion. Fascism is what you get after a failed revolution against capitalism. Don't want fascism? Get your friends and arm them so the revolution succeeds.


nah, don't you know that fascism is when orange man bad and no abortions


Extremely based take


Martha Speaks did nothing glowuygha keep dreaming that the failed state can pull off another 94 without it blowing up in its face


Fascism is a complete capitulation of the state to private interests.
The US elected a literal billionaire who proceeded to dismantle any state services and worker protections he could.
Delete thy self brainlet Leninoid.


The US has been a fascist state since the Powell Memorandum and Trilateral Commission then. Or arguably even before that when the cold war was initiated to protect the aerospace industry's profits at the end of WWII. The problem is your definition has no clear delineation between when enough of the state is controlled by private interests to constitute it. The other problem of course is that everyone who has ever called themselves a fascist has meant something different. The one thing they truly have in common is counter-revolutionary violence and oppression and a regime that constitutes itself after a defeated revolution.


So like the Bolsheviks?


If the idea of fascism is "state ruled by private interests", that defines literally every state ever. States are ruled by men and people who do not have the public good in mind. They don't exist simply to exist, as if they were passive. That is always a pretense of states, and fascism and its philosophical origins exaggerate those pretenses to their maximum.

What really makes fascism unique is why it does so, and the long-term aims of fascist states. It was clear that the Nazis were not merely an aberration or an ad hoc response, but were the plan of the ruling interest moving forward. The idea that nothing changed from the 19th century is a pure mystification, sold by those who want to protect what was created.

"Fascism" implies certain commitments that the US only makes around 2000. The Powell memorandum is a sign of what was interesting in making what happened in 2001 a reality, but up until the Patriot Act, the US is still doing the liberal "democracy" thing and remains a relatively free society. It's a trope in the past 20 years to act as if it was all illusory and we were always fascist, but we weren't. If we were, nothing like civil rights would have been tolerated for a moment, and it would have been the screaming extremes of Reaganism all throughout the 20th century. There has been a pro-Nazi contingent in this country ever since the OGs, and they insinuated themselves in every place they could, but in the main the commitments of the US Government were the preservation of this empire, not some goofy attempt to LARP as Nazis that the neocons fetishize.

What is being built is something quite different from the Nazis, but the Nazis are the inspiration for the eugenics stuff that the ruling interest actually wants. Eventually the petty-manager screamers will be liquidated and you'll see the really dark shit, but that will take some time. If you know some of what they say in secret they have big plans for the country and the world. The Nazi posturing is a transition to something much more thoroughgoing and fully eugenist.


I was wondering why this sounded so goofy and off, then I got to the last paragraph


>Eventually the petty-manager screamers will be liquidated
I wanna see one if you shit stain tankies define PMC.
>I can't understand degree or spectrum so I declare myself right.


>when you can't tell the difference between fascism and Bonapartism


PMC - someone whose labor isn't involved in the production of commodities but rather that reproduction/maintenance of the conditions under which commodity production occurs
>Why are reddit tier radlibs larping as communists so dim witted. The most unoriginal people on the planet


File: 1679213036699.mp4 (567.57 KB, 640x360, FjmUDEhqByBLkobJ.mp4)

>absolute chad


Okay asshole what doesn't count as labor to you?


Someone is in the bitchy phase of their weedstral cycle


I've seen fucking nurses being included as PMCs. Term was coined in the 70's when corporations had thick layers of middle management but that's all been replaced by IT. PMC had long ceased to be a meaningful term if it ever was.


Cope, dimwitted fag. ITcels are all PMCfags too.
<Try having an original thought in your life.


The hottest commodities right now are all in IT. You're speaking to me on an IT system right now commieboo.


what you be talking about incels


(theres also fourth sector in fact)

you're all incels




A lot of muhleftism is composed of people in the pentanary sector of neets, students, and panhandlers who aspire to quanternary status.


yeah lets kill them in based T4 program, adolf


Are you agreeing with Stalinboo that people in IT ate tertiary and therefore not in the "real" process of commodity production?
If so, do you think Toyota's drive themselves into people's garages.
It's a BS point regardless considering how much digital only commodities there ate like songs and streaming services.


File: 1679251541829.webm (3.58 MB, 852x480, 1676991536883383.webm)

The only people I've ever seen use the term PMC are wealthy clout chasing white pseudo intellectuals like Chapo Trap House.
It tries to play on Protestant work ethic. All it really means is any worker that's not living hand to mouth. That you're not a real victim of capitalist exploitation unless you're suffering. Which is ironic considering this pejorative is often hurled by people that can comfortably live off their family's wealth and don't even need to hold a job like a PMC would much less suffer like "real" workers do.
You can also tell they're punk ass faggots because they never call out the only real PMCs, cops and soldiers. Two classes of people that exist solely to uphold private property.
Because of course these little Dirt Bag Left worms are heavily propertied themselves and share the need with the booj to keep them around.


>The only people I've ever seen use….
>…faggot solipsism


>The only people I've ever seen use the term PMC are wealthy clout chasing white pseudo intellectuals like Chapo Trap House.
You need to get out more then. Serious Marxists like Adolph Reed use it all the time.


>Adolph Reed
>Another anti idpoler that blames the failure of the left on uppity niqqers.
You're only proving my point.


Adolf Reed is a dirt bag intelligentsia and is exactly the heavily propertied navel gazing pseudo intellectual "Marxist" I'm talking about.


Ah, so you're actually an imbecile suffering from delusions of competence. Makes sense.




Nah man, don't dunk on Adolph Reed, he's decent.

As far as the term PMC goes, i wish more people had gone with PMS for Professional Managerial Strata, so that it doesn't collide with Private Military Contractor which also acronyms to PMC.

There's also a debate about whether or not there's a manageriat that has formed a distinct class in the Marxist sense. So there's also people who will argue against labeling it a managerial strata and insisting on the class moniker. I haven't made up my mind about that, so don't expect a conclusion.


File: 1679262581290.jpeg (23.83 KB, 474x474, lol.jpeg)

>There's also a debate about whether or not there's a manageriat that has formed a distinct class in the Marxist sense.

and what is a distinct characteristic of this distinct "manageriat" class?

>I myself more of a "cognitariat" than "proletariat"

epic last words of a wage slave as his ass gets further proletarianized


I already told you and you waved your hands around like a faggot


I never talked to you before retard

>someone whose labor isn't involved in the production of commodities but rather that reproduction/maintenance of the conditions under which commodity production occurs

how is that a class characteristic?
that's just non-productive labor if we're talking about management or productive if we're talking about replenishment of the depreciating capital stock


I think I need to explain complete basics of marxist theory on a leftoid board.

Class is characterized only by its relationship to the surplus being produced in a society.


File: 1679266254539.pdf (2.61 MB, 67x118, Zbigniew_Brzezinski__Betwe….pdf)

PMC is an attempt to mystify what the technocratic polity was, pretending that there was still a republic where you vote or any democratic impulse mattered for anything. It was made as a pseudo-Marxist attempt at class analysis, intended to obfuscate those who had secured position in the post-war order and would fight bitterly to keep it. It is around this time that a layer of petty managers would proliferate, whose only specialty was making others suffer. This was the replacement of industrial work with service work, something Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about in 1970 to announce what the new plan was - he called it the "technetronic" worker, but this had been foreseen by what was established in the post-war order and what changed in the 1930s. Attached is his writing - it's fairly short and easy enough to read.

The PMC critique found adherents among the neoconservatives, who needed something to obfuscate their own strategy and support base during neoliberalism. What they don't like to tell you is that a lot of "PMCs" were the liberals who defected to Reagan and never looked back, who pronounced their faith in capitalism and total Social Darwinism. The progressives were split between grifters who were faithful believers in the eugenic creed, and morons who were the sheep saying "two legs baaaaaad". It's insulting how much the progressives have degraded their base. Those retards will believe anything.

Anyway it was revived around the Trump period as part of the "throw out a million different lies to pretend that this isn't eugenics". After 2020, the liberals and Trumpoids made it clear what side of the war they were on, and everything from the Rightist echo chamber is scripted to steer the faithful to the full eugenic creed. Trump doesn't even deny his faith in eugenics, and anyone pretending otherwise is a faggot of the highest caliber.


File: 1679267121030.png (258.07 KB, 512x497, yourmeds.png)



File: 1679267137271.png (460.97 KB, 993x1556, address.png)

but you don't understand, who needs doctors, accountants or programmers? plus, my manager was mean to me last week, how do you explain that?
now let me tell you which activities produce value and which don't…


IT doesn't produce commodities as such - nor does security work or various other functions where the labor is commodified, but what is "produced" is control of the society. This begs the question of what controls people, and there is one answer above all - suffering.

We spend exorbitant effort lying to each other and compelling others to follow a ruinous program, because it is too much to let people live and the siege must go on. No one here wants to acknowledge eugenics though. They always pull back because if they do so, they give away the game and that all hopes of revolution were a lie, and a barely believed lie at that.

You could do the thing people actually wanted from the start, which is not this shit, but that's too much. You'd rather spend trillions of dollars to feed a conceit and a myth about genetics. Of course, it is silly to expect anyone to ever give up a slavery. It has never happened unless the slaves revolt, and slave revolts do not last long. The one time in history a slave revolt succeeded, the whole world was on notice and made sure no such thing ever happened again, and the freedom won was suspect - of course, the Haitian Revolution wasn't just a slave revolt, and often the rebels were themselves slave owners - colored slave owners but still slave owners who saw themselves protecting their stake.

See, this is all they have - Satanic retard chanting. He doesn't care about winning anything. He just wants snark, assuming he isn't some bot out of an Air Force base - but I know there are enough degenerate faggots, and I have nothing but pure contempt for them. They gain nothing and do it for nothing but faggotry. Hate, hate, HATE.


Wow jannies policing this place too to censor one of the few ITT with a functioning brain. What faggotry.

This is economism and a vulgarization of social class. You'd have to believe that liberalism actually abolished formal social class to believe that, but the liberals themselves never did such a thing. The liberals had no problem with social class distinctions or aristocracy - they just saw that they had as much right to be aristocrats as the nobility, and that their aristocracy would be premised on supposed merit rather than hereditary privilege or feudal titles.

It is the case that every class, to be a class for itself, has to hold on to certain property. The free workers own their body, and so defending that body is defending their stake and their concept of freedom and class interest. If the workers do not possess themselves, they're worse off than slaves ever were. That is what has happened now.
You might haw haw and say "rights aren't real", but the slaves certainly didn't think manumission meant nothing, and understood there were people eager to put them back in chains or just kill the ex-slaves and chop them up for medical experiments.


File: 1679267913980.png (2.33 MB, 1502x1199, 1678340846423.png)

what a well thought and well redacted reply, now everything makes sense. I'm convinced - no - I'm certain that I speak for all the users here when I say that the extreme clarity of your argument has completely persuaded me

if you mean the post with the shanghai pic, I deleted it because I made a typo and didn't want people to notice


A post with a reaction image is evidence of "jannies policing this place too to censor"? Take your meds more often and you might not make this mistake.


>This is economism
Yes, and? Class is an economic category.
More at eleven.

Don't muddy the terminology.
If you want to peddle your pet lib theories about social groups, then use strata or something.


Org Tanny jannies be absolutely seething about this place.


Look at all the seething this post caused all the brainless Leninoid class reductionists kek


It's no surprise that "The Dirtbag Left" glommed onto such a deeply right wing term. They're crypto capitalist reactionaries that think that criticizing the GOP for their glaring fuck ups that can be seen from space makes them "left".


Lenin and Stalin would have understood this for what it was and saw the danger of institutions answerable to no one. Lenin broke down and couldn't control it. Stalin had to be the boss and the emperor and keep his house in order, which was no easy task. When Khrushchev takes over a lot of these people who wanted "easy communism" took over and decided to just say fuckit to the project.

It is kind of the point of communism to build the "PMC", because that would be the class basis for the communist state in the Marxist-Leninist model. They weren't under any illusions that they were not doing this though, and that the apparatchiks and technocrats did not constitute an influential sector in the Party. There was a very reasonable fear of institutional rot that would be neglected until the end of the USSR, but those who wanted to salvage the project saw that there was something rotten in Moscow, and made attempts to ameliorate the worst consequences of it. The same fears existed in the US of the growing technocrats, until neoliberalism decided to not just encourage the rot but make the rot the prime thing. That was difficult to compete against, and Republicans are conscious of their strategy from Reagan on. It is called by various names, one of them being the "Bad Santa" theory - that the Democrats are busy trying to placate too many disparate groups, while the new Republicans focused on a few key groups and told them they were the silent majority. The reaction from the Democrats was to double down on their aristocratic wing, and that became the normal of American politics after the Cold War. During the 80s Democrats tried to run with the old stuff or at least something that resembled it, and they would be trounced over and over again. In politics, it is hard to compete against pure rot unless there is a persistent pressure resisting the state, and that became an impossibility. It became Democrat policy to try out-neoliberaling the neoliberals, and therefore you get Clinton, Obama, and all the way to the basically fascist Bootygay.


Anyway, "class reductionism" is itself a silly talking point. The struggle of classes had long been understood to be a struggle over institutions, waged by organized entities. Inchoate mobs remain inchoate until they are led by some principle, which implies that the mob has a leader. There is no Revolution of 1791 unless Danton is there to lead that mob. You can argue there are a number of men who could take Danton's place and that is true, but it remains the case that Danton acted and knew what had to be done if he was to win, and the king stepped in some deep shit so if he didn't act, someone would have in that environment. The idea that you just "rabble rabble" to make events move is performative politics at its worst, and one takeaway from Marx is that this is a shitty way to get what you want in politics. A good Marxist knows conspiracy very well, and knows that politics is at heart a conspiracy and the nature of that conspiracy. It used to be that conspiracy was the way most people understood politics, so far as they engaged in such behavior, and the Marxists were very adept at navigating that world and dominating the other radical groups. The idea that conspiracies can't possibly exist is a very newfangled one. The Marxist-Leninists were always on the lookout for conspiracies against the Party and within the Party, because that's what they themselves were engaged in and because there were indeed conspiracies against the Party in the Soviet Union.

Point being that reducing classes to essences is missing the point of what social class even refers to, and if you have to define "class" in this narrow way, you don't really want to acknowledge social class. You want a narrative that constructs reality as you see fit, and want to pretend that people organized by an interest are not at all organized. The bourgeois are not united by some spooky force that money creates, but because they're invested in real institutions like banks and governments, and capitalism is premised on those institutions existing. If you have the imagined "Little England" ancapistan, you don't have capitalism, but some fantasy version of feudalism, and that's why ancaps shriek like retards at any culture that suggests their precious view of a whites-only world is a child's idea. Neoliberal society goes out of its way to suggest that there is only the bourgeois way of life, and if working class life is presented as all, it is trashy and depraved and exists to be humiliated. The view of working class people as anything other than simps to be cajoled is anathema to the neoliberal view of society and history; conversely, they can only conceive of governments run by the best and the brightest, who possess this Luciferian light that allows them and them alone to conspire. They either imagine themselves as being Promethean, or they ascribe to another group some demonic power for doing basically what they want to do. That's the dominant mode of thinking in neoliberal, eugenic society.

I don't think acknowledging the professionals and managers with university education is an inherently right-wing position, but it is simply the facts that the PMC concept was adopted by the center-right as a way to take the blame off of themselves and their ongoing conspiracy. Teachers are included in the "PMC" for good reason, but teachers tend to be poor as fuck and struggle to stay afloat. The critique of technocratic society is repurposed for a project like charterizing the public schools, but the technocratic society itself isn't attacked. Charterization is something the PMC loves, which is why you have Cory Booker telling you how great school choice is. It should be clear that the right doesn't think about justice or anything functional, but purely about how to get ahead and kick someone down. The idea of a cooperative politics is anathema to the right constitutionally, even if you explain the obvious benefits of not being basically Satanic in their commitment to greed. All they think is "me wantee". They're natural slaves, selected for that trait and encouraged in all of their vices.


File: 1679287539672.jpg (101.04 KB, 799x599, 1678322734291738.jpg)



I've read these posts so I'll save everyone the trouble. They're a hodge podge of half baked ideas loosely connected by a meandering line of logic.


File: 1679317761612.jpg (25.08 KB, 678x452, 1674048793163194.jpg)

give me a tl;dr, are they still arguing about this stupid PMC theory?
who could realistically think that a teacher, a consultant or a scientist are not exploited because the goods they produce (health care, information, etc.) are not as physically concrete as, for example, an armchair?
they throw the word class around without ever explaining how such an heterogeneous group, with different interests and no organized political power or representation whatsoever, constitutes a class in any sense of the word
the whole discussion reeks of american politics tbh. in the rest of the world it isn't rare for teachers and clerks to have unions, participate in general strikes, protest, etc. and movements like the anti-996 campaigns show that these new sectors (IT) have not escaped proletarianization

what's the point of writing so much about this shit?


File: 1679318401921.jpg (12.39 KB, 504x229, classpill.jpg)

>class reductionists
this usually is a liberal slur for "socialist" or "marxist"

Socialists should perhaps embrace the label, and consider it a virtue like having a high level of class consciousness. Maybe we could have a metric for theories and if the level of class-reduction is insufficient it's considered flawed.


Clearly a managerial strata is trying to become a class for it self by itself. It's not very well defined atm. Corporate managers cajoling the workers clearly belong to it, but to what extend other groups also belong to it hasn't been figured out.
What is also unclear is weather or not the managerial strata achieves their goals of becoming a real class. We could be mistaken entirely and this is nothing but a failed attempt at creating a caste or a guild.


No, class reductionist is the term for Marxist that try to reduce everything about capitalism to a math equation then brow beat anyone that doesn't agree with their asinine premise.
Just as you are now just straight accusing everyone of being a liberal even though not one person here is arguing against any Marxist tenants, just your interpretation.


>What's the point of having a detailed and nuanced understanding of the modern world as it exists
t. muh left


>muh class reductionism
>i can't read
many such cases


>class reductionist is the term for Marxist that try to reduce everything about capitalism to a math equation
Math is a very effective tool, why would you think this is anything but high praise.


File: 1679324636149.jpeg (87.25 KB, 500x572, read nigga read.jpeg)

Productive labor produces time-durable goods that are not consumed immediately as they are produced.

code monkeys are productive, teachers are not - this is just a basic fact of economic surplus production

nevertheless they are both wage slaves and if teachers want to support the struggle of surplus producing proles then they are welcome

but if they want a bigger cut that would be paid out of the surplus produced by other workers (as is usually the case with public sector wage slaves in capitalist states) - then I don't see why communists should support them


The time durable good that teachers produce are skilled proles.


labor can't be surplus when it is the source of surplus

labor is distinct from capital


Labor is a commodity. And some labor is more valuable then others.


tho teachers can be productive to the extent that they produce educational material that could be accumulated and distributed further in time

or if they contribute to accumulated scientific knowledge with research


>what is the difference between labor and labor power
is it too much to expect a knowledge of the most basic things from a leftoid board?


>Productive labor produces time-durable goods that are not consumed immediately as they are produced.
If this is what Marx meant by productive labor then it is absolutely retarded.
By this logic a Hollywood actor playing a role would be productive labor, but an actor playing in a live play would not.
A musician recording an album would be productive labor but none of the songs they sing on tour would.


Please, all you pseuds do is imply you're right without saying why.


>By this logic a Hollywood actor playing a role would be productive labor, but an actor playing in a live play would not.
>A musician recording an album would be productive labor but none of the songs they sing on tour would.
yes, that is right
your problem?

What in the word "accumulation" do you not understand brainlet?


What do you mean by accumulation?


Why would there be this distinction. I'm sure your either wrong or bastardizing Marx's meaning.


If you're not adhering to the basic axiom of LTV then any distinction between productive/nonproductive labor loses all meaning

all human activity is productive that is paid money for

banking is productive
weapons manufacturing is productive
onlyfans is productive


What a computer program does is command and control. You're not making a commodity - early computer software had a problem with piracy, because computer programming lends itself to a communist way of sharing programs. It is far easier to let the programmer get his/her pay then make the programmer sell something that could be reproduced in microseconds by copy+paste and trnsmission. Basic code should be as ubiquitous as water, but rather than that, we have the reverse where water is made into a scarce resource by deliberate deprivation.

Anyway, productive labor and the working class are not moral categories. In Marx, the working class is the proletariat and the two terms are used interchangeably. Beggars and whores are part of the working class just as proletarianized professionals are. The distinction of who is in the working class in Marx is derived entirely from relation to property rather than any moral sense of what workers or capitalists do. The bourgeoisie is defined by its ownership of title that allows them to avoid working while retaining honor and status in society. A beggar is placed under the expectation that he ought to work, and his failure to do so is why he is a beggar. The great mission of the liberals was to split the working class by moral philosophy into grades of civic worth, where the beggar starts out as a struggling worker before being cast permanently into the residuum, and then degraded as part of a soft-kill tactic / tactic to modify the beggar into a pure animal. That's why Marx shrieking about the lumpens - because the lumpens weren't useful for his projct - was the worst thing you could do if you wanted to unite the working class. So long as the beggar exists to be humiliated, he will always be a threat. The only way forward then is to eliminate all of the beggars and accelerate their suffering - and then the threat of beggarization is used to discipline the proletariat and force them to accept literally anything. Every man and woman will be reduced to a beggar in the end, except those that win the class struggle and ascend into a fake form of godhood. In the 1990s, this came to pass, and the liberals started going fully into this Luciferian idea where they glorify themselves. Bush Sr. referenced that in his million points of light speech - he's making an overtly Luciferian statement that would not have been lost on people who knew what America actually was, who are familiar with its history.

It's hilarious how people are trying to talk sense into the retard mystifiers in this thread, and they just double down on this failed faggotry. That is all eugenics does - double down on faggotry and disallow anything real to exist. With "friends" like this, who needs enemies?

Point being, in neoliberalism, producing misery became itself life's prime want. It permeates the culture, because the incentives of a eugenist society line up behind creating Ingsoc at the least and making a total hellworld on average.


>What do you mean by accumulation?
accumulation of the products of labor

>Why would there be this distinction.
how are you gonna accumulate what is not time-durable retard?


"Productive" and "unproductive" are distinct categories with meaning, not merely categories pertaining to exchange. Marx distinquishes between production of use-values or things we would actually want and production of fictitious capital or things that are only useful for destroying people. He writes explicitly about capitalism becoming a fetter on producing useful things, as there are incentives to do the exact opposite and make people suffer. Something like today's military-industrial complex would fall under "ruin of the contending classes".


I'm not gonna read your tldr retard. If you can't keep it simple - you're not worth my time.

>What a computer program does is command and control.

computer program is a time-durable use value that can be accumulated

>"Productive" and "unproductive" are distinct categories with meaning
if has no meaning if you don't adhere to basic axiom of the LTV that the labor is the source of all value

otherwise all meaning is completely arbitrary


You're retarded, here is a non retarded explanation of CAPITALIST productive labor. And the actual explanation doesn't lend itself to declaring entire fields "unproductive".
>‘It follows from what has been said that the designation of
labour as productive labour has absolutely nothing to do with
the determinate content of that labour, its special utility, or the
particular use-value in which it manifests itself. The same kind
of labour may be productive or unproductive.’ (IV/1, 401).
‘An actor for example, or even a clown, according to this
definition, is a productive labourer if he works in the service
of a capitalist (an entrepreneur) to whom he returns more
labour than he receives from him in the form of wages; while
a jobbing tailor who comes to the capitalist’s house and
patches his trousers for him, is an unproductive labourer. The
former’s labour is exchanged with capital, the latter’s with
revenue.’(IV/1, 157)


In other words IT pros, actors, nurses etc that are in the employ of a capitalist enterprise are PRODUCTIVE labor.
If you hire any of these guys to do a side job for you for your personal benefit then that is unproductive capitalist labor.


>You're retarded
nah, you're retarded

not all wage labor is productive labor

for productive labor, ie labor that can facilitate accumulation and so extended reproduction, products of labor need be ACCUMULATABLE, ie time-durable

go shove your quotes up your ass dogmoid


>If you hire any of these guys to do a side job for you for your personal benefit then that is unproductive capitalist labor.
<everything that turns up a profit is productive by definition
gambling is productive now lel

that how retarded you dogmoids are


When a doctor treats someone in a hospital the patient is charged more then what the doctor gets paid, that's the accumulation.


now translate it to the language of labor theory of value and try to make sense of it brainlet

product of the doctor's labor is not accumulated, it is consumed immediately


yeah, the point is that your "PMC theory" is completely detached from reality


Due you're retarded if you think any employee that doesn't make a commodity that can sit on a shelf isn't enriching their employer. Especially considering that the US is mostly a service based economy.
Yet another Dunning Krueger tankie that is bastardizing Marx


Dude you're retarded if you think about capitalism not in terms of reproduction of the whole system, but in terms of individual capitalists llel.


Yes, so exactly is a doctor not making money for his employer. Do you think the IT industry got so big by not stealing surplus value?


If everyone in healthcare and IT is an unproductive capitalist laborer then how the fuck did those industries get so big?


value is created by labor and then accumulated by capitalist that uses it for reproduction and personal consumption

doctors facilitate accumulation, just like teachers and all other non-productive labor does



read >>>/R9K/1973
your babble makes no sense lol

note that he couldn't refute this quote, and is now acting as the burden of proof was on you. I can't decide if this guy is trolling or just plain retarded I guess both


How is the real estate industry got so big?

Also IT is productive retard.


Thank you idiot, the argument is whether IT and doctors' labor is productive or non production.


shut the fuck up brainlet

quotes is not an argument

not everything that turns out a profit is productive


okay moron

Question: does a code monkey produce a time-durable use value?


negation is not an argument
>quotes is not an argument
it is, try reading it


>doctors facilitate accumulation,
Hospital"s in the West are capitalist enterprises. Doctor's are not merely facilitating accumulation by putting proles back to work. Their employer is charging more then they are paying for the doctor, then taking the difference as profits and accumulating more equity I other hospitals.


Yes, of course. Do you think code is burned to power computers?


QUESTION: Is gambling industry productive?
After all, casino employees get paid out of the capital, not revenue lmaoo.


>Yes, of course. Do you think code is burned to power computers?

THE NEXT QUESTION: Is the labor of code monkey productive?

AND THE NEXT QUESTION: Is code monkey a part of the "IT"?


>Their employer is charging more then they are paying for the doctor, then taking the difference as profits and accumulating more equity I other hospitals.

QUESTION: Is gambling industry productive?
After all, casino employees get paid out of the capital, not revenue lmaoo.


File: 1679331575479.jpeg (25.97 KB, 474x429, lol.jpeg)

God, I'm completely DESTROYING theorylet dogmoid libs ITT.


>Is the labor of code monkey productive?
it depends on whether or not there was an absorption (accumulation)
>The capitalist production process, therefore, is not merely the production of commodities. It is a process which absorbs unpaid labour, which makes raw materials and means of labour—the means of production —into means for the absorption of unpaid labour.
>It follows from what has been said that the designation of labour as productive labour has absolutely nothing to do with the determinate content of the labour, its special utility, or the particular use-value in which it manifests itself.
>The same kind of labour may be productive or unproductive.
if the commodity is durable or not is irrelevant


>more quotes

QUESTION: what is a surplus?


>He he you don't understand the heights of my intellect.
Blow it out your ass.
>THE NEXT QUESTION: Is the labor of code monkey productive?
Yes, they were hired to produce a commodity that will sell for more than they were collectively paid.
>AND THE NEXT QUESTION: Is code monkey a part of the "IT"?
Yes, why do you put IT in quotes like there's some kind of contention about fucking programmers being in IT.


>Yes, they were hired to produce a commodity that will sell for more than they were collectively paid.
QUESTION: does this commodity has anything to do with a process called "accumulation"?


>if the commodity is durable or not is irrelevant
I know it's weird that the brainlets in this thread are so hung up on this. Likw what constitutes durable anyway. Is milk non durable because it expires so quickly? Its so stupid.


>Yes, why do you put IT in quotes like there's some kind of contention about fucking programmers being in IT.

<the argument is whether IT and doctors' labor is productive or non production.

QUESTION: do you understand now why I put IT in quotes?


>does this commodity has anything to do with a process called "accumulation"?
Yes, the profits will be used to accumulate more capital.


>Likw what constitutes durable anyway.
It means discrete in time.


>do you understand now why I put IT in quotes?
Because you think you are way smarter than you actually are.


QUESTION: Is profit = surplus value?


Dafaq does that mean.


It means that a product of labor is separated in time from the producer.


>If this is what Marx meant by productive labor
it isn't. I'm not sure why you are here if you haven't read marx, but here is a short answer
chapter 12, "Productivity of Capital. Productive and Unproductive Labour"


Yes, Get to your goddamn point


QUESTION: what is a surplus value?

THE NEXT QUESTION: does surplus value get accumulated?


>Because you think you are way smarter than you actually are
nah, it is because you ask retarded questions such as "is IT labor productive"


he seems to think that accumulation means literal accumulation (hoarding) of the specific commodity that is being produced. I already refuted his point here >>>/R9K/1973 but he obviously refuses to engage the refutation


Enough games, answer my my questions now. Is Netflix a capitalist enterprise?


>he seems to think that accumulation means literal accumulation (hoarding) of the specific commodity that is being produced.
QUESTION: Is labor theory of value exclusively about products of labor?


QUESTION: How is surplus value relates to the products of labor?


I actually thinks services can't be productive labor because they're consumed right away.
I'm sure he's the same autist I've run into on this board before who makes these very literal interpretations of Marx and insists he's right on pedantic grounds


Question: Does Netflix and the labors within constitute "IT" to you?


*I actually think he thinks


does he? I don't see any ground or interpretation, he is making some retarded non-marixst argument the worst possible way


File: 1679332862427.jpeg (24.57 KB, 474x266, th-553042157.jpeg)

Theorylets completely DEMOLISHED and reduced to impotent seething lol


That's what I assumed he was doing. Isn't this a Marx quote?
>Productive labor produces time-durable goods that are not consumed immediately as they are produced.
He posted this as proof that Marx defined productive labor as labor that produced commodities that could be separated for long periods of time. Basically anyone who provides a service like health care is unproductive labor.


Obviously Netflix as a software platform is time-durable. So labor that went into programming is productive.


So your saying teachers are unproductive because they're paid for with taxes and their labor is consumed immediately. Right?


yes, teachers are paid out of the surplus produced by productive labor


You cannot buy Netflix software. You will find it nowhere on the market. What people buy is the access to movies which they immediately consume. There is no durability to the Netflix service, as soon as you stop paying your subscription it disappears as a service.


>Isn't this a Marx quote?
no, lmao. and even if it was, it would still be wrong
in fact, marx makes all the obvious arguments against such nonsensical proposition


How is productive labor paid then?


>You cannot buy Netflix software.
Obviously you can. Netflix software platform is a capital good. Just go buy Netflix shares brainlet lmao.

You can buy a prostitute, does it mean it is productive?


Everything is paid from the surplus labor.


>How is productive labor paid then?
productive labor gets paid out of the surplus it produces

LTV 101 kek


No you cannot, you cannot by the software that Netflix runs on and run your own Netflix service in your home. You clearly don't understand very basic fundamentals about IT like what a client is.


Teachers are producing proles, whose labor is purchased by capitalists.


File: 1679333604624.jpeg (14.79 KB, 372x363, face.jpeg)

>No you cannot, you cannot by the software that Netflix runs on and run your own Netflix service in your home.

QUESTION: Can a capitalist buy and sell Netflix shares?


>Teachers are producing proles, whose labor is purchased by capitalists.
QUESTION: Do wages get paid out of the surplus value?


Yes, why do people pay Netflix a monthly fee. It's not for software which comes preinstalled on set top boxes.


>Yes, why do people pay Netflix a monthly fee.
QUSETION: Is there a difference between a capitalist and a consumer?


Question, are Netflix customers consuming software or movies?


Why are you sighing for dumb faggot. You're the one saying IT is unproductive labor because it's a service.


QUESTION: Can capitalists own shares in companies that own capital goods?

ANOTHER QUESTION: Can a consumer of a Ford truck take a Ford factory and run it in his home?


you are replying to something that is just plain wrong. no one can be this stupid, he is not arguing in good faith don't take the bait


Maybe saying teachers are productive labor is a stretch but certainly not healthcare workers. Even highly socialized healthcare like in the UK are still profit seeking in many respects.


>You're the one saying IT is unproductive labor because it's a service.
QUESTION: Does "IT" produce time-durable use values?


QUESTION: For surplus value to be accumulated and then distributed as wages does there need to be a corresponding accumulated surplus of products of labor?


That's not what defines productive labor. If I hire a singer for my birthday party that's unproductive labor.
If I hire a singer to perform at a concert so I can hire yet more singers that's productive labor. The singer is doing the exact same thing in both situations.
You and him are the brainlets that think teachers are unproductive labor because they're paid with taxes and because teaching is a service.
Teachers don't teach any old thing. They teach what capitalists need proles to know. Educated proles are a commodity that's purchased.
Unproductive labor is labor that's not a part of any capitalist enterprise. Paying a tutor to teach me math is unproductive if I'm doing it to simply know math.


>You and him
I didn't say that. anyway, don't take the bait


>If I hire a singer to perform at a concert so I can hire yet more singers that's productive labor. The singer is doing the exact same thing in both situations.
QUESTION: Out of what are you going to pay wages to this singer?


>Unproductive labor is labor that's not a part of any capitalist enterprise.
QUESTION: Is casino a capitalist enterprise?


At my birthday party, I'm paying out of pocket.
At the concert, I pay the singer with ticket sales revenue.
Services not being productive labor is something SMITH posited. It was vehemently rejected by Marx.


>At the concert, I pay the singer with ticket sales revenue.
QUESTION: What constitutes revenue?




QUESTION: What is a relationship of sales to surplus value?


Marx rejects your premise, why not read Marx instead of learning about home through whatever libertarian text you read.


QUESTION: Out of what teachers get paid their wages?


I don't pay my employees all the money I was able to sell their commodity for.


QUESTION: What determines a price that you sell your "commodity" at?


They're paid with taxes.


>They're paid with taxes.
QUESTION: Out of what are taxes collected?


The market, can you just spit out your point. Walking me to the point isn't clever.


>The market
QUSETION: given two reproducible commodities that get exchanged at a particular ratio, what determines this exchange ratio?


Profits, that doesn't mean it's unproductive. Schools are factories that produce proles whose labor is purchased on the international market.


QUESTION: What is a relationship of profits to surplus value?


All the other price differentials between all the other commodities.


I already answered that, how did Netflix become one of the largest capitalist enterprises in the world if IT labor isn't productive capitalist labor?


QUESTION: when you sell tickets for a particular price do you know "price differentials between all the other commodities"?


Marx rejected the premise that services cannot be productive labor. That is an Adam Smith argument.


>I already answered that

>IT labor isn't productive capitalist labor

IT is productive if it produces time-durable use values


QUESTION: Was Marx's theory of prices a theory where market agents know "price differentials between all the other commodities"?


>IT is productive if it produces time-durable use values
Nope, that's an Adam Smith argument, Marxism rejects this.


I will give you a hint of what is happening. I can ask you a short question that requires a really long answer. if you don't do your homework and type a 1000+ word essay, your answer is most probably going to be wrong. if you do write a long answer, I can completely ignore it and ask some other question (that you probably already answered). you can cheat and post a quote, and even if the quote answers the question, I will just ignore it and say "I don't care about quotes"
think for a second, you are wasting your time


QUESTION: What was Smith's theory of value?


Services can be productive labor. How did Netflix get so big if all the labor it uses was unproductive.
You try to lie about how they make money by saying they actually sell software. But this can be taking a part by one question. Would customers continue to buy Netflix's "software" of it didn't have any movies?
Indeed it's entire ability to make money hinges on what movies it has available.


QUESTION: Out of what is casino paying its workers?


>How did Netflix get so big if all the labor it uses was unproductive.
QUESTION: Is banking industry "big"?

ANOTHER QUESTION: Is Netflix software platform a time-durable capital good?


Fuck Casinos, let's talk about FAANG. Facebook, Apple Amazon, Neflix, Google. The largest capitalist enterprises in history.
But can this be when Google doesn't even sell software or anthinng "durable".


>But can this be when Google doesn't even sell software or anthinng "durable".
QUESTION: Is a piece of software a time-durable use value?


>Is Netflix software platform a time-durable capital good?
>Is banking industry "big"?
Quit moving the goalposts, you said IT and healthcare are unproductive labor, even though they're behind some of the largest capitalist enterprises to ever exist, explain how this is so.


Yes, but selling software is not how Netflix makes money. Go on the app storw for yourself, their client is free.


QUESTION: Did Netflix software platform disappear as soon as it was programmed?

ANOTHER QUESTION: Is a piece of infrastructure a capital good?


QUESTION: Does this answer your question about if I think IT industry is productive or not?


That infrastructure isn't what's sold dumbass. It's getting to watch movies. This is like thinking people buy movie tickets because they want to visit a theatre. They came to watch a movie.


The movie disappears as soon as you stop watching it.


>That infrastructure isn't what's sold dumbass.
QUESTION: When you buy a TV do you also buy a news channel?


I do not pay for the local TV news. I pay for Netflix.


QUESTION: Is movie a time-durable use value?


QUESTION: When you buy a TV set do you pay for a TV broadcasting tower?

ANOTHER QUESTION: Is a TV broadcasting tower a capital good?


Show me where Marx argues that services aren't productive labor.

Unique IPs: 41

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]