cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/25177343
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
379 points (92.8% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
703 readers
175 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
First of all, very wrong instance to say this. Secondly, that quote is from Lenin not Marx, which means it represents a certain school of Marxism not all Marxists. And finally, maybe actually spend some time understanding what Marx was talking about before you go calling Marxists stupid. You might even end up questioning your capitalist indoctrination and become one of us.
And don't forget, we don't hate you, we just hate your ignorance towards us.
Probably because you keep talking about something you have no clue about. In fact I'm going to call you out on it. Give me a compelling argument against the M-C-M' cycle. Honestly, I'd be surprised if you even understood what I asked because most people aren't aware of the fundamental ideas Marx presented.
When your only experience with Marxism is "Marxism is bad" and you start yipping about Marxism you shouldn't be surprised when people get angry. Nobody likes a stupid person.
Ironically it's the exact opposite, Marx is very clear on that.
Labor-power is also the only thing laborers can "commodify" and sell because laborers don't own the means of production to make commodities. Your individual labor is a cornerstone of Marx's criticism of capitalism.
Okay, this is as clear of an example as you can make to show that you have no idea what Marx is talking about. Let me break it down.
What the M-C-M' cycle describes is you buying a TV from Walmart for $400 and then selling it for $500 right out the door. M to C is trading $400 for the TV and C to M is trading the TV for $500. You say that's just how things work and then at the end say you literally can't do that. What gives?
No there's not. Let's say you have $10 in your pocket and you go to a market to buy a cake. What labor is involved when you give the cake maker $10 and they give you the cake? None. You most likely got that $10 by selling your own labor-power as a commodity (because that's all we laborers can do) so labor went into that $10 and then labor went into baking that cake. However no labor goes into the exchange because the exchange doesn't produce anything, it's just an exchange of two "equal" value items.
All of those things are factored into the cost of the commodity, you'd know that if you were familiar with Das Kapital. Everything from labor used to extract minerals that are used to create tools all the way to someone driving to move the goods from one location to another where the goods are needed or sold, everything is taken into account.
I'm going to use your own example to explain this. If someone is willing to pay you $100 for you to deliver the goods to your door then yeah, that extra money (or profit as you put it) does come from the labor that you put in. I won't get into the nuances of this argument as Marx writes multiple chapters on this topic, but the short version is that it's not the M-C-M' cycle. You put in your labor power, they put in the money, you get the money, they get the output of your labor power - it all evens out because that's actually the C-M-C cycle.
If you want to turn it into an example of the M-C-M' cycle imagine you're a delivery driver. Someone is willing to pay $100 to have the TV delivered to their doorstep. That someone pays $100 to your boss because they own the company (or more specifically the means of production). Your boss pays you $80 for the delivery as per your agreement with them. For you the C-M-C cycle applies, you sell your labor power as a commodity (the first C), you get $80 for your labor power (the M) and then you use that $80 to buy whatever you need (the last C). Completely makes sense. The same C-M-C cycle applies to the person who is willing to spend $100 on a delivery. They most likely sold their labor power (the first C) to get $100 (the M) and then they used that $100 to have the TV delivered to you (The last C). Also completely makes sense. But for you boss applies the M-C-M' cycle. They pay you $80 for you labor power, you use that labor power to make a $100 delivery and then your boss gets $100 back. Where did they get that $20 when they did literally nothing in the labor process? Just doesn't make sense.
Now back to the original question, make a compelling argument explaining how someone can put in $80, do nothing, and get back $100.
EDIT: What the fuck? Banned for "anticommunism"? You do you, but I am going to point out that there's no rule against being anticommunist. The other guy was abrasive and he didn't really understand Marxism and he technically broke rule 6 but those are hardly a reason to ban him without a warning.
What labor? The two things you brought up?
That's not labor. That's now part of the means of production because you're buying it so you could use it in your labor process.
So the boss hires someone whose job is to figure out who wants the TV and then that someone lets the delivery driver now. The boss pays them $2 for that labor. What does the boss do to get the $18?
Again, gross misunderstading of Marxism. In a sense Marx wants us all to own our business. Hypothetically if you have a one man company who owns their own means of production and gets the full fruits of their labor, that's actually socialist.
Look at you starting to name call. And then you wonder why people are antagonistic towards you.