What is so bad with owning property/possessions?

But isn't accumulating matter one of the core prerequisites for successful continuation and multiplication of a living being?
F.e. do crows lock every other crow in the cycle of collecting food, nest materiel or do they do it to simply survive?
Can't they just go innawoods, clear some forest and start a farm without being dependent on someone else?
Freedom=abolishing the freedom to decide to own stuff. Isn't this cognitive dissonance?

If you know the answer, you can surely sum it up in a sentence or two.

READ MARX

Attached: okabe eyes.jpg (1280x720, 63.07K)

Literally SJW logic - "if you don't belong to group, you can't say anything meaningful about it!" From whence it is again proven that polyps are just as much into idpol as their bogeyman.

For the record, Marx did hold jobs throughout most of his life, though not factory ones.

read Marx so you stop saying stupid things.

R E A D M A R X

There's still property under communism, it's just that it will be owned by the lower-class plebians instead of the bourg.

We're coming for your toothbrush too, fascist

Oh, I'm real scared, considering how many successful, long-lived communist utopias there've been thus far…

You mean the rulling-class plebians :^)

Not this shit again. Please actually read the things you want to criticize next time. Hell, you didn't even need to read Marx, you could have found the answer on Wikipedia in 3 seconds.

How'd your
ONE THOUSAND YEAR REICH
go?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (678x381 342.66 KB, 433.86K)

When the bourgeoisie control all the land and resources that people need to work in order to sustain themselves, and forces the people to live according to their conditions in order to access it, how is that any different from when a king or noble does the same thing?

Attached: 0df469b03305348cb502e77e9639fdd3250900ac356929fc18bc0d70bc62ed32.jpg (500x338 126.11 KB, 61.33K)

Fargoth is a bitch and I never give him his ring back.

Attached: MW-npc-Fargoth.jpg (768x768, 127.21K)

Attached: de613676ee2ea2120ae569914068c78f.jpg (736x736, 50.06K)

Let's see here,
And no, the only job he had was working as an editor for some small paper, until everyone else found him insufferable and fired him. He never worked in industry, nor did he work ever again.
Maybe instead of screeching "READ MARX" over and over again, you should actually think critically about what you're reading, instead of blindly accepting it as some kind of holy truth.

Nice projection. Except I'm not dumb enough to be a Marxist, therefore I don't divide people into "oppressor"/"oppressed", the way SJWs and Marxists do.
I'm saying it's his analysis of pretty much everything having to do with producing a good is hilariously naive, as anyone who has ever had a job can attest to. A guy who owns a business likely works harder than anyone else there, because he has the most to lose. Workers can just go find another job; if the business fails, the owner is likely blowing his brains out.
No, he didn't. He was just a welfare queen off of Engles money, who paid him to do the equivalent of "old time shitposting", and it's bleeds through pretty clearly in his writings.

the owners twist your arm and make you work. it's that fucking simple.

also, head in the sand, wouldn't expect anything less, ljl

Marx's critique doesn't amount down to "capitalism is evil and has had zero positive impacts." None of your points invalidate or even address any criticism of capitalism that Marx made.

But you would know that if you actually read Marx

Value, Price, and Profit is a good starting point. It's just a little over 80 pages.

Attached: 1470613872791-2.png (497x830, 356.79K)

Small time business owner, maybe, but the big guys have safety nets and administrative armies.
Of they fail and are left with just their house, I don't see how they're any worse off than the people who just lost their jobs because the owner is a shit businessman.

Actually, my introduction was Capital. I read that before the Manifesto.
The only reason most people find the work unapproachable is because the terminology he uses has a completely different meaning than what he implies. A good example of this is the OP of this thread. Another one is his simplistic, black/white distinction of "class", which has absolutely nothing to do with how much money a person makes. Related to that, "means of production" gets into incredibly silly territories when you relate it to class.
I think the mistake most Marxists make is thinking that the only reason anyone wouldn't treat Marx as God's own prophet is because they haven't read his holy word. Besides his predictions being wrong, his work is also riddled with internal contradictions as well. The problem with forming a cult around him is that you'll never notice them.

Criticism is fine and all, but you should know what it is you're criticizing. Based on what you have posted so far, you have retained very little of what you allegedly read.

Risk does not create value, only labor creates value.

You haven't read Marx OR basic economics.
Name one.
Name one.

Oh my god what is this bullshit
How so?

With what, specifically? It is because I'm not posting specific page and paragraph numbers?

I hope you're trolling, but there are many things besides "labor" that cause something to be value. Scarcity of resource, its demand, its legality, the specific devices needed to produce something, the expertise required, etc.

Wrong
I already named multiple, scroll up.
The worst one is his idea of value theory and falling profit rates. Aggregate price/profit = aggregate price/surplus value. Not only is it internally inconsistent, but has objectively been proven to be false in the real world, where there exists many ways to increase profit without "more exploitation".

Attached: take bait walk away.jpg (800x500 35.77 KB, 33.07K)

Because no reasonable person would consider a farmer who hires an extra hand for help "part of the upper class", while the son of a billionaire who works at Starbucks for shits and giggles "part of the proletariat", but according to Marx and people here, based on "the means of production", that's entirely the case.

And before you try some ad hoc thing like "but it doesn't count, the billionaire's kid doesn't HAVE to sell his labor!", then consider the fact that neither do welfare queens, who would then also apparently be considered "bourgeoisie."

aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html
Define economic well being, because in the first world austerity measures are fucking the working class hardcore.
Holy shit, an actually true point. Kinda. There have been first world revolutions, but only unsuccessful ones.
That's, well, factually wrong. Nice job.
Reason why in the PDF.

Attached: e3cd14e57377f00a2cbf4c51356d591253cc947999e0cab4662d44263b8b7992.png (1195x997, 358.05K)

Dude. You haven't read Capital and you know it. I have only read shorter introductory works by Marx myself and that's already enough to see how ridiculous it is to think Marx was against personal property or that he would have considered "capitalism is the best system so far" a statement that disproved his theories. It is impossible you went through the most dense economical work Marx ever wrote without even getting a grasp of the most basic parts of his critique.

You are conflating price and value. You have not read Marx. Stop lying.

shitty what-about-isms and demonstrating further misunderstanding of class. ljl. mods anchored your shitty thread just go away now.

Why don't you like the idea of one's class as being a relationship to the process of production? It gets at power dynamics in the process of production that an analysis of class that looks only at fancy baubles ignores. also that farmer would only be a member of the petite bourgeoisie since he is still far from able to retreat from direct productive labor himself after hiring one hand

All accounted for by Marx, these are modifiers of value, not the source of the value in a commodity.
LOL
O O
LOL
Pic related
researchgate.net/publication/272873041_The_sources_of_aggregate_profitability_Marx's_theory_of_surplus_value_revisited

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (278x181, 9.33K)

Bonus pick

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (816x289, 50.64K)

Class isn't how many zeroes you have in your bank account. Class is the role you perform in society.
If you sell your labor-power, you are a prole. If you own the means of production and actually have it put to use, be it a factory, a website, or simply money used for investment, which is to say, investment capital, you are bourgeoisie. Does this mean you can be both? Yes, as long as you're performing both roles in society, such people are the petit bourgeoisie.

Attached: image-41.png (750x458, 322.22K)

I'm not denying extreme wealth equality doesn't exist under capitalism, I'm just saying there's less people living in poverty under capitalism than without.
worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-global-poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-major-hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030
Well, not soar, but they haven't been falling, and certainly not crashing. They've been pretty stable for 50+ years.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall#/media/File:MEoC.png

What do you mean "without"? Less than when feodalism was the dominant mode of production?

Literal capitalists lies
aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html

So you didn't read my first link, good job.
Except that trend line you linked trends, well, down. And read the PDF I linked. The world rate of profit is decreasing.

Attached: 9d32a880d226b89037165de624261110e0712ae6996395cac95553115de4646b.png (478x319 255.21 KB, 205.24K)

I'm not OP. If I have a criticism against Marx along those lines, it's his misuse of the word "property". He obviously meant "the means of production" when he used the word "property", and not "your toothbrush", but you can obviously see why that would confuse people like OP.

I am not. I know the difference between price and value, because we've all seen how centrally planned economies consistently fail.

Then show how this isn't the case. I'm literally using Marxist definitions of class.

I literally just explained why. It's an overly simplistic definition of the different types of "classes" exist, which is completely unrelated to wealth.

To everyone who isn't a Marxist, yes it is.
Socially, like in India's caste system? Yes.
As far as wealth goes? No.
Otherwise, it just sounds like you're agreeing with me. That billionare's kid working at Starbucks is apparently part of "the proletariat".
Can you not comprehend how utterly silly that sounds?

But you are the guy who claimed "Workers have greater economic well-being than ever" is not in accordance with (or even disproves) Marx's theory, right? That alone makes me highly skeptical about you having read Marx. He literally wrote capitalism would improve the living conditions of the working class, yet make the gap between workers and capitalists larger.
you just discovered marxist economics are different from classical economics? fucking congrats

He was writing in German 150 years ago. Language evolves and translators sometimes don't do the best job.

Claiming that something is absurd doesn't make it so. The ideal of classes is an analytical tool in the first place.

It's pretty fucking simple, do you have to sell your labor-power to not fucking die? You're a prole.
The piglet is a prole insofar as they're being exploited by whatever porky they chose to be employed by. If the piglet invests his capital in stocks or gets other means of production, he's bourgeois.
If you think this is is inadequate to explain power relations in society, explain why.

Read

Attached: markets_are_efficient.jpg (960x794, 78.81K)

So, all I'm getting is that half the people here unironically believe that a billionare's son working at Starbucks is part of the "proletariat" by Marx's own definition, and the other half think that's retarded, but are still Marxists.

How do you reconcile these two?

No economic theory can explain people doing things for non-economic reasons. Some rich person deciding one day to sit on their money and not invest and just go work in a really shitty service environment with awful hours and annoying customers is not something that anyone can make sense of. Hypothetical questions like this are pointless when it comes to any analysis or critique of society.

Have you read ? You seem to think everybody is "essentially" a prole or a bourgeois, but it depends what relationship you're looking at. The same person can be a prole and a bourg at the same time depending on the context. And no, class doesn't just equal "wealth" even though the bourgeois class is wealthier. If we mean wealth we will say wealth.
bullshit you ignored 90% of the content of the posts you replied to

Actually, that's kind of a fundamental tenant of any legitimate economic theory; the ability to account for the fact that there are far more forces at play that effect economics than merely "economics".

I did see your post.
It was idiotic.
If that's the revisionism you're going with, then Marx's definition of class went from merely being silly to absolutely meaningless.

A hypothetical class of people who live entirely off the dole would not be part of the proletariat, you are 100% correct. They might be considered lumpen, or perhaps could be an entirely new class depending on circumstance.

that's something very different than taking absurd hypothetical bullshit that literally would never happen into account
the concept of petit bourgeosie has been explained to you before, if you fail to understand how that's different from being "a king and a peasent" you're either baiting or retarded beyond repair

THIS

Also, the idea of "owning" land is a relatively new concept which developed after the bourgeoise started exerting and justifying their need for expanding capital and expoporating value in the 15th centuryish depending on the geographic area. Owning land in this sense, creates condition in society where there is classes of people who own nothing and are tied down to being workers. Why should property like this exist in the first place? It is a historically contingent justification for class relations, that society can live without and in which the people who work under this property can get benefit from.

Because the land has been past down through your family from generation to generation? In an unbroken line that connects you to your father, your grandfather, and the rest of your ancestors, and hope will continue for many generations to come through your children and your children's children?

If you use it yourself, fine. If you rent it out, why should you be allowed to keep it? Someone else is using it. You've just become a leech.

Congrats, son, now you realize why all of history have hated the Jews.

Are you equally in favor of dispossessing aryan landlords, bankers, and industrialists?

Thread locked by jew bolshevists.
Who would have thought.

What part of it having everything to do with your performed societal role do you not fucking understand?
It's not about being upper or lower, better or worse, it's about what you do in society you walnut. A king can't be a peasant because a feudal lord owns the land a peasant is bound to. A king who owns the land he is bound to but still works is just a king that likes to farm, as there's no way to enforce the supposed relation between him and the land, aside from his ownership of it.

If you're talking about "predatory lending practices", then yes.
If you're talking about "murdering your boss for having the audacity to start a business", then you're a commie.

Only if they put up a violent resistance to the seizure of their industrial capital.
Where do you think you are?

Thread isn't locked you imbecile it's just anchored for being redundant reactionary bait

Take your ring and fucking circumcise yourself with it Fargoth, you twig dick outlander netch shit.

Then no.
One of the few places on the internet that unironically makes Zig Forumstards look like rocket scientists by comparison.

P O T T E R Y

You know you're not going to get anywhere. Dude, just do the reading. Read the book user posted, then come back with any euqestions you have. Otherwise it's obvious you're not here to learn. Just read the book.

Imagine blatantly ignoring all arguments and academic studies presented to you throughout a whole thread, to top it all off with this embarassing statement.
If you're not even willing to think out of your echo chamber why do you come asking your dumb ass questions here? faggot

Attached: 1507483926815.png (406x452, 30.1K)

That's the thing, though.
This is the most psuedointellectual hotbed of utter retards I've ever come across, and this is coming from someone who was banned for their very first post on Zig Forums.
Why the absolute deadbeat loser known as Marx, of all people, do you worship, after he's been consistently been blown out time and time again?
From what I've heard of Marx, not ever Marx would want you to hang onto his failed predictions like this.
You're just insane cultists
Have fun with that.
I'll be over here progressing humanity, while you scream about how "porky is the reason you never developed any useful skills", or whatever. Have fun with that.

You mind actually showing how he's been proven wrong? Because you just keep saying he's wrong without bringing up specifics and resorting to character attacks. People have been telling you to read because everything so far has been a characterization then actual examples. You could have brought up LTV and your view on it or how you think the actual economics are wrong, but you just keep repeating he's wrong and reverting to moralisms. Make an argument.

inb4 "hurr he's wrong cause I said so"
You're dealing with someone who thinks stomping their feet when they're mad is an argument. Quit throwing them pearls

Attached: 1516293940887.png (403x448, 56.59K)

Or you could, y'know scroll the fuck up.
If you're so brainwashed that you've conditioned your mind to literally block out counter-arguments, then no amount of repeating them will do either of you any good.

He would be a prole if he was cut off from his fathers wealth and had to survive through wage-labour. If he lived of his fathers fortune and only wage-labored for shit and giggles, then he would obviously be bourg (as he would be living of his fathers capital, rather then wage labour)

Hadn't you read Marx? This pretty entry-level stuff.

Attached: 6a768b04ca65fc832513d2aa73e71dea1e7c74854aa784e4b85c433c9633b772.jpg (480x353, 41.84K)

the problem is that I don't believe everything I read.

Attached: 1404933636602.jpg (396x400, 26.63K)