Yep, that’s the entire purpose of shifting from production for Exchange-Value to production for Use-Value.

An hour of labor is an hour of labor. Productivity can increase or decrease, but the labor will still be an hour. A chair that is able to be built in half the time it once was due to new tools and methods has less Value than it once had.

Read Wage Labor and Capital and follow it with Value, Price and Profit if you want to really understand what Marxists believe. They go in-depth on what constitutes Value by Labor.

An hour of labor is an hour of labor. Labor that requires more labor to replicate is compressed labor.

Read Wage Labor and Capital and follow it with Value, Price and Profit if you want to really understand what Marxists believe. They go in-depth on what constitutes Value by Labor.

The Communist Manifesto was a pamphlet written within the context of Marx’s time, and the Material Conditions that came with them. They were not meant to be the solution, but a solution, and for his time period.

Reading the Communist Manifesto as a means to say Marx’s ideas are problematic by stripping them from their context and slapping them onto modern times is a disservice to Marxism.

Marxism is a frame of analysis, a philosophical method via Dialectical Materialism, and a tool for looking at how to improve whatever situation you are in. As such, further reading of Marx beyond the Manifesto is a requirement to understand what Marxists of today advocate for.

Yes, you’re on a platform built by commies along commie principles, specifically on a commie community.

Capital is made up of dead labor and raw materials, it isn’t something shared by the Capitalist and Worker. Instead, it’s vampiric in the sense that ownership by the Capitalist allows said Capitalist to exploit living labor.

Commodities trend towards being sold at their values, not below or above, over time, yet profit is still taken. This is due to the laborer working for more hours than they are paid. Ie, if they create 50 dollars of Value in 4 hours, yet recieve 50 dollars for 8 hours labor, then they are working 4 hours for themselves and 4 hours for the Capitalist.

Reading Wage Labor and Capital followed by Value, Price and Profit can help explain this further, in much more detail.

Where is the hatred? I was just asking for the base reasoning for their assertions, as they were unsupported.

What specifically have I not answered?

Communism is not a religion, it’s a process of collectivizing property and improving production so as to produce based on the needs of society rather than profit.

You seem to be arguing against a vague abstraction well into the future as though it has already been tried, which is why you said it “happened in the dozen or so times it has been tried.”

Do you think Communists believe upper-stage Communism can be achieved in our life time? No, it is only achievable after rapidly improving production. Communists advocate for naturally building up to that point through steady improvements and collectivizing production through Socialism, then lower stage Communism, then finally upper stage Communism.

Another thing - an upper stage Communist society would be both international and stateless. You’re arguing against Anarcho-Communism, and poorly as well, not Marxism.

Marx didn’t like it when people followed a set of rules with no Materialist bearings but imagined it to be logically consistent. Marx was definitely a fan of believing things and advocating for better.

When Marx said he wasn’t a “Marxist,” he was referring to people who took his words as dogma, not people who generally used the Marxian method of analysis. He wasn’t dunking on people who agreed with him, he was telling people to also touch grass.

I don’t know what playing the stock market has to do with anything, Communism isn’t a vow of poverty and nothing about society would change if he refused to do so.

What do you mean?

Has it? Has it truly?

Your argument can be made against all forms of social services, and ignores that people work to get paid. This hasn’t panned out in your game theory favor at all.

If you’re trying to argue against higher stage Communism, “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs,” then that also doesn’t follow. Higher stage Communism has never been achieved by any AES country, so again, your example is false.

In no reading of your statement does it follow reality.

Ah, vibes-based analysis that ignores all of Marxist theory on how a transition to Communism would work, and just vibes out how it would be. Nice.

Yes, Matpat will save Marxism.

No, seriously, what problems does Marxism have, and how does Game Theory “solve” them or point them out?

Do you imagine a communist system that has classes of people?

If you are referring to the Marxian term, ie proletarians, bourgeois, etc. Of course not. Do you instead mean people must be paid equally, and there can be no management? Also of course not, Communism isn’t a bunch of horizontal organization and equal pay.

Castro, Zedong, Putin

Putin is a Capitalist, so I am unsure of what you mean by including him here.

As for Mao and Castro, Mao lost power within the CPC over time and Castro retained power democratically, neither of which maintain your points. This appears to just be vibes.

You’re arguing Communism on a philosophical level and capitalism on a practical level.

What on Earth does that mean? I am advocating for Communism on both practical and philosophical grounds, this is just gibberish.

As I said, I’m not well read and unprepared for the higher level argument you are seeking here.

I am trying to get to a base level of understanding so we can have a conversation. I wouldn’t even call it an argument, I am just trying to get you to understand your own preconceptions.

I appreciate your desire to educate, but I’m too busy being exploited by the current system to dive further into social philosophy. When you guys are ready to rise up I’ll be there, but I won’t be a part of the debate on which system we should implement going forward.

Revolution doesn’t happen just because people vibe it into existence, it’s a consequence of deteriorating Material Conditions. If you don’t have time to read Marx, why do you have time to discuss Marxism online with strangers? This entire convo would have been better spent comprehending the bigger picture of Marxism.

Why does Communism require “true equality amongst its citizens?” What does that even mean, in practical terms? How would a group of people take advantage of this to form a “practical dictatorship?”

Capitalism does not deploy the most efficient means of product delivery, but the most profitable. It means weaker but more profitable products are pushed, and rampant consumerism of useless trinkets is pushed for profit. Collusion and monopoly are not why Capitalism cannot work, those are merely symptoms of a broader exploitative system that naturally decays due to issues like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall.

What of Marx have you read? Or any leftist theorist? I can make some suggestions for reading material if you wish.

What part of Communism “requires people to not be assholes to function?”

Why do you think Capitalism would function if people were not assholes?

No, I expect deeply unserious analysis, I just like trying to lead these people to theory. Doesn’t work all the time, obviously, but it does work sometimes.

Why?