Karl Marx in more context.

[Tehon]

Capital is a commodity that is not intended to be consumed immediately but is instead used to create more capital.

So, give me an example of capital.

Money?

Investment and interest?

.

Yes, money can be capital. A farm tractor is also capital.

 

[francoHFW]

Nobody gives the damn about Karl Marx and Engels, they were wrong everywhere but the fact that workers were getting screwed over... Nobody gives a damn about the USSR and their version of socialism either. Gigantic fail. Everywhere in the modern world but the United States, socialism is now Fair capitalism, which is everywhere in the modern world but in the United States. When we get healthcare for all we will qualify finally, barely. GOP dupes are all over the map but nothing they know is factual. Poor Cold war dinosaur brainwashed functional morons.... Thanks for the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the modern world. At least the mega rich and the dupes are happy LOL...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, the lumberjack trading his lumber in exchange for food from the hunter would be exchange of capital, correct? (Lumber being capital)

(Lumber being used to make something else)

No, because he is trading the lumber to satisfy a need. He intends to consume the food, not resell it to increase capital.

so the ox driver takes his wagon 20 miles to the lumberjack, trades scans he got from the hunter for the lumber, carries the lumber to the builder and exchanges with the builder for something of even greater value.

That's capitalism right?

Maybe I need an example.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, money can be capital. A farm tractor is also capital.

Would a bow and arrow be capital?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The lumberjacks ax is capital?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wouldn't labor be capital?

 

[Leo123]

Marx was a bullshit artist and fraud. Engels was a lair and Marx's publisher and fellow con artist, and a better writer than Marx; don't know why he kept Marx around in the first place, since he didn't need him and had to fake the guy's math for him anyway.

So much for Marx......The faux intellectual.

Except that he was right about the dangers of the industrial revolution causing more of a monopoly by those who control excess capital.
You can't claim he was a total fake or fraud when he not only was right, but leading edge, and way ahead of his time even in terms of ethics.

“Excess capital” is a made up term to convince you to give your hard earned income away to a corrupt central government.

 

[Leo123]

Nobody gives the damn about Karl Marx and Engels, they were wrong everywhere but the fact that workers were getting screwed over... Nobody gives a damn about the USSR and their version of socialism either. Gigantic fail. Everywhere in the modern world but the United States, socialism is now Fair capitalism, which is everywhere in the modern world but in the United States. When we get healthcare for all we will qualify finally, barely. GOP dupes are all over the map but nothing they know is factual. Poor Cold war dinosaur brainwashed functional morons.... Thanks for the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the modern world. At least the mega rich and the dupes are happy LOL...

And thank tou for the bullshit made up definition of “equality” and the fake term Upward Mobility.

 

[Tehon]

So, the lumberjack trading his lumber in exchange for food from the hunter would be exchange of capital, correct? (Lumber being capital)

(Lumber being used to make something else)

No, because he is trading the lumber to satisfy a need. He intends to consume the food, not resell it to increase capital.

so the ox driver takes his wagon 20 miles to the lumberjack, trades scans he got from the hunter for the lumber, carries the lumber to the builder and exchanges with the builder for something of even greater value.

That's capitalism right?

Maybe I need an example.

How do you not know what capital is? It's the foundation of the productive system you champion everyday.

 

[Picaro]

{...
Das Kapital, also known as Capital. Critique of Political Economy (German: Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, ...1867–1883) by Karl Marx is a foundational theoretical text in materialist philosophy, economics and politics.[1] Marx aimed to reveal the economic patterns underpinning the capitalist mode of production, in contrast to classical political economistssuch as Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Marx did not live to publish the planned second and third parts, but they were both completed from his notes and published after his death by his colleague Friedrich Engels. Das Kapital is the most cited book in the social sciences published before 1950.
...}

Engels burned all those notes, so no one could say he was lying. Marx stopped working on his crappy mathematical 'proofs' when Karl Menger and a couple of other economists began publishing their works; Marx knew he couldn't refute them, and so did Engels, but Engels knew his audiences was full of ignorant people he could lead around. Adam Smith is best of that list; he has a lot to say that right wingers always pretend not to see or want to cite, cherry picking what they want from his writings, much as people do re the 'Founders'.

 

[Oddball]

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Here are some more quotes:

"Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work."

Does this include women?

"Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense."

I like this.

Here is a prediction he made regarding the repeated implementation of his ideas:

 

[RandomPoster]

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Here are some more quotes:

"Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work."

Does this include women?

"Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense."

I like this.

Here is a prediction he made regarding the repeated implementation of his ideas:

View attachment 247752

Why no talk of seizing the means of reproduction to guarantee equal redistribution?

 

[Rigby5]

It is science to understand human nature and how societies are created by human nature, as we evolved.
The only parts we have not figured out is that human nature evolved for small groupings like family, tribe, etc., and we are not sure how or what to try to scale up to state, nation, or global size.

First, social groupings only work out of a sense of inherent connection (tribe/family). Those usually involve at least an acquaintance with all members.

Where communists and socialists ignore human nature is believing that people who are unconnected by tribal or family ties will freely work for their mutual benefit.

Humans are prideful, jealous, greedy, lazy shits. Those traits are primal. Those traits support survival and spreading of genes.

Capitalism harnesses those primal traits for the benefit of society.

Socialism and Communism do not.

Why? Because why work hard enough when one gets paid the same to half-ass it.

Why bust ass when your house will be exactly the same as your neighbors?

Why be productive when there is no fear of starvation or homelessness?

Wrong.
First of all, people are inherently interconnected in larger groups than must family or tribe. And even tribal members don't all know each other, since tribes can be hundreds of thousands members. Even notice sports team supporters, nationalists, patriots, or even members of a particular religions with more than a billion members?

Second is that pride, jealousy, greed, and lazyness are not primary because they do not support survival, so are not selected for by evolution. Humans are more motivated by empathy, desire for respect, gratitude, loyalty, etc. That is because those traits evolved through being essential for species survival.
When the marauding leopard attacks, the alpha male will sacrifice themselves so that the women and children can escape.

Third is that neither socialism nor communism says everyone gets paid the same.
If you work harder or longer under socialism or communism, you get paid more.
Communism and socialism only say that the workers get to make more of the decisions because it is their tax money that went into building the company, not that government has more say or that workers are going to want everyone paid the same.
Obviously workers will know who was slacking off and not want them paid as much.

 

[Rigby5]

Human nature evolved for tight knit social groups like family and tribe, where cooperation and self sacrifice are the highest values and spontaneous emotional response.

I agree. It was because of a close tie, and sense of belonging. Communist/Socialism does not work that way.

Capitalism could not even have begun to exist until after there was excess production, after humans had abandoned hunter/gatherer culture and developed agricultural economies. Capitalism is only a few thousand years old, out of a 5 million year or more social evolution. And no noticeable evolution can happen in just a few thousand years.

Capitalism developed when peaceful trade developed. Period. End of story.

When a hunter got really good at hunting, he traded his excess with others for something of value.

A guy who got really good at building huts traded with the hunter for food.

.

No, hunters did not trade, never developed currency, and has no economic system.
Hunters are obligated to share, because not only would they be in trouble is they did not, but they know they need to share from someone else when their hunt fails, and since any animal successfully hunted meant the hunting grounds were then more sparse, no one considered a successful hunt to be theirs alone. A successful hunt would make the next hunt more difficult.

Trade came about when agriculture caused a surplus of food production that could be preserved and traded. That is also when currency came about. Hunter/gatherers do not usually trade. They did not specialize and have one guy build huts, make bows, hunt, etc. They all did everything they needed themselves. Europeans started trade with Native Americans, but Native Americans were already agrarian, had currency, and they were trading with Europeans for steel they could not make themselves.

 

[Rigby5]

It takes a whole lot of work to build a hut. The hunter would probably need to provide lots of food in exchange for the builder to build him said hut.

Wow. A value system has naturally emerged.

How could that happen?


.

Did not happen.
No self respecting hunter would accept a hut made by someone else as their own.
Nor were huts individual usually.
They were usually large communal structures.
The thing natives find the most bizarre and offensive in Europeans culture is specialization.
Almost no primitive hunter/gatherers ever do that.

 

[RandomPoster]

The current Godfather of Socialism, Bernie Sanders was once kicked out of a hippie commune for being a lazy POS and letting everyone else do all the work, while the fruits of labor were distributed evenly. Why do most of the people advocating for Socialism seem to be the least productive?

Here is an interesting passage from an article about his stay at the commune:

"The future senator’s opening remarks were followed by a Q&A between him and a friend, Loraine (spelled “Lorraine” in the article), who had recently given birth to a baby, Rahula (spelled “Rahoula” in the article), on the Myrtle Hill commune.

During labor, Loraine said she was surrounded by a circle of hippies chanting “a meditation mancha” that “seemed to really bring in good energy.”
This group included “the couple of men who were potentially the baby’s father,” wrote Deloz. After Rahula was delivered at dawn, “someone ran out into the field and blew a long blast on a hunting horn.” Loraine then ate her afterbirth, a detail that does not appear in the book, but that appeared in the second part of Sanders’ essay.

When Sanders wasn’t reporting on the wonders of childbirth, he spent his time at Myrtle Hill in “endless political discussion,” according to Deloz.

Sander’s idle chat didn’t go over to well with some of the residents of the commune who spent their time engaged in the backbreaking labor that was required to maintain the commune. Daloz says that one residents, Craig, “resented feeling like he had to pull others out of Bernie’s orbit if any work was going to get accomplished that day.”

Sanders was eventually kicked out of the commune. “When Bernie had stayed for Myrtle’s allotted three days, Craig politely requested that he move on,” Daloz writes.

Deloz does not specifically address what issues Sanders discussed with commune residents, but earlier passages give the general flavor of political discussion at Myrtle Hill. “There were bigger ideas under discussion too: a kibbutz-style school for commune children; the possibility of a coming violent revolution; and the pros and cons of group marriage.” In another passage, Deloz describes how one commune resident led the children on marches, chanting “Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! Vietcong is going to win!”
The commune at Myrtle Hill Farm lasted into the 1980s before the socialist idealism fizzled out in the end. Daloz describes how the residents of the commune eventually adopted lifestyles the originally rejected, with traditional gender roles and monogamous relationships—”Free Love turned off like a faucet.”"

"Lazy Bernie" Was Once Kicked Out of Hippie Commune

 

[Rigby5]

When a hunter got really good at hunting, he traded his excess with others for something of value.

That isn't capitalism.

capitalism
noun
cap·i·tal·ism | \ ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm , ˈkap-tə-\
Definition of capitalism


: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Definition of CAPITALISM

Please tell me how the hunter trading his surplus for other goods or services is NOT capitalism.
Private ownership? Check
Capital goods? Check
Private decisions? Check
Prices, production, distribution determined by a free market? Check

Tell me where I am wrong.

Where you are wrong is that no one needs to borrow any investment capital in order to hunt.
They make the weapons themselves, and do not need to buy them from anyone.
Capitalism has nothing at all to do with private ownership of good you produce, but private ownership monopoly of the means of production.
There is no private monopoly on the tools of hunting or hunting grounds.
The spoils from hunting are not capital goods, you can not sell or trade the, because they came from the communal hunting grounds.
So you are required to share them.
There are private decisions as to how and what you hunt, but that is all.
And there is absolutely no market involved with hunter/gatherers.
If there was, then they would have developed currency, and they did not, until there was agricultural surplus and they were agrarian.

 

[Rigby5]

So, the lumberjack trading his lumber in exchange for food from the hunter would be exchange of capital, correct? (Lumber being capital)

(Lumber being used to make something else)

No, your own quote just explained that capital is something you can invest in the production of other goods.
Hunter/gathers did not do commercial exchanges as you suggest.
There was no specialization, like lumberjacks or exclusive hunters.

 

[Rigby5]

Capital is a commodity that is not intended to be consumed immediately but is instead used to create more capital.

So, give me an example of capital.

Money?

Investment and interest?

.

Currency is normally essential for capitalism, but you could also use something like land, which in itself is not consumed, but is valuable in terms of being able to produce food later.

 

[Rigby5]

The current Godfather of Socialism, Bernie Sanders was once kicked out of a hippie commune for being a lazy POS and letting everyone else do all the work, while the fruits of labor were distributed evenly. Why do most of the people advocating for Socialism seem to be the least productive?

Here is an interesting passage from an article about his stay at the commune:

"The future senator’s opening remarks were followed by a Q&A between him and a friend, Loraine (spelled “Lorraine” in the article), who had recently given birth to a baby, Rahula (spelled “Rahoula” in the article), on the Myrtle Hill commune.

During labor, Loraine said she was surrounded by a circle of hippies chanting “a meditation mancha” that “seemed to really bring in good energy.”
This group included “the couple of men who were potentially the baby’s father,” wrote Deloz. After Rahula was delivered at dawn, “someone ran out into the field and blew a long blast on a hunting horn.” Loraine then ate her afterbirth, a detail that does not appear in the book, but that appeared in the second part of Sanders’ essay.

When Sanders wasn’t reporting on the wonders of childbirth, he spent his time at Myrtle Hill in “endless political discussion,” according to Deloz.

Sander’s idle chat didn’t go over to well with some of the residents of the commune who spent their time engaged in the backbreaking labor that was required to maintain the commune. Daloz says that one residents, Craig, “resented feeling like he had to pull others out of Bernie’s orbit if any work was going to get accomplished that day.”

Sanders was eventually kicked out of the commune. “When Bernie had stayed for Myrtle’s allotted three days, Craig politely requested that he move on,” Daloz writes.

Deloz does not specifically address what issues Sanders discussed with commune residents, but earlier passages give the general flavor of political discussion at Myrtle Hill. “There were bigger ideas under discussion too: a kibbutz-style school for commune children; the possibility of a coming violent revolution; and the pros and cons of group marriage.” In another passage, Deloz describes how one commune resident led the children on marches, chanting “Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! Vietcong is going to win!”
The commune at Myrtle Hill Farm lasted into the 1980s before the socialist idealism fizzled out in the end. Daloz describes how the residents of the commune eventually adopted lifestyles the originally rejected, with traditional gender roles and monogamous relationships—”Free Love turned off like a faucet.”"

"Lazy Bernie" Was Once Kicked Out of Hippie Commune

From the 3 allotted day description, clearly Bernie was never in, and was just either checking it out, visiting, or recruiting.
But I have never see any commune that required "backbreaking labor".
That is the whole point, in that the larger the group, the more automatically efficient and the less anyone has to work.
For example the rent does not increase when you simply occupy more of the rooms of the building.