I'm confused. What does it mean for workers to own the means of production? What would a communist state without a government look like? Is "workers own the means of production" just a platitude, or something more?
I think the gist of Marxist Communism is to violently rise up, seize the infrastructure necessary to production from the rich, and put in any sort of system to keep the rich from reattaining any of that previous leverage over the working class.
>>543038 >What does it mean for workers to own the means of production? Something like this for most people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management >What would a communist state without a government look like? More like "what would a communist nation without a state look like?". And the answer is obviously anarchy. > Is "workers own the means of production" just a platitude, or something more? What's your point? In most cases a rich dude called a CEO owns a large part of the means of production, shares for examples, and he make poor dudes work for him, those don't own anything.
Companies owned by their workers are very rare in the world.
>>543038 There is such a thing as a co-op company.
You know how CEOs get stock options when they sign on? That means they aren't just salaried and hired by the board of directors to perform labor like employees. They now own part of the means of production.
>>543038 It's a meme that could only work on the micro scale in the short-term. What it actually is, in practice, is the nationalization of all industry, abolishment of private property(the state now owns it), and redistribution of wealth(distributed however the ruling party sees fit.) If one were inclined to critical thought, they could easily see how this reduces the common man to little more than a slave.
>>543113 >>543129 Since Orwell was an anarchist (which means communism without state), it's safe to assume that Animal Farm is more a critic of the USSR under Staline than a critic of communism itself.
>>543135 If one were inclined to critical thought, he would see that communism can take many forms beside totalitarian USSR.
>>543165 That's just the manifesto. There are other forms of communism. Kropotkin's anarcho-communism for instance was against any form of dictatorship.
Also even the dictatorship of the proletariat was mostly just to describe a state in which the proletariat had all political power. This has been interpreted in ways other than vanguardism. Council Communism believed this would be decentralized worker's councils that would function in a libertarian manner, for instance.
>>543159 I addressed that. True socialism is utopian, because the type of coordination it requires is impossible ona large scale. That leaves us with what it inevitable descends into, which is state socialism.
>>543038 It's calling for lets say a factory, to be owned and ran collectively by it's employees. With it's employees reaping the income, and making decisions for it. It's not at all perfect, and the closest thing you could find to it would be employee owned businesses. Which to the common employee looks little different than working for an actual company.
Workers owning the means of production means that all factories and businesses are owned by the workers as a cooperative, and they all produce what the community needs to survive and either ration them out, or just let the people take what they want, with a general understanding that you shouldn't take more than your share. There'll also be a good amount of luxuries available as well in a functioning communist system.
I'm not in favor of communism, but that's the indisputable definition of communism in my mind.
The only true communism in my mind is the anarcho-communism of Peter Kropotkin and other related thinkers.
The confusion arises because of Marx and Lenin and Stalin. Marx, Lenin and Stalin believed that the world would eventually get to the type of communism described in the first paragraph. But first, they thought you had to have the government take over all the businesses instead of independent workers communes running them, because according to them we're not ready to just have the workers take over the businesses themselves.
It's never really specified why they don't think society is ready to transition to true communism immediately after the revolution, Marx and especially Lenin and Stalin are completely illogical and retarded compared to Kropotkin and the other anarcho-communists.
>>543214 >It's never really specified why they don't think society is ready to transition to true communism immediately after the revolution, Probably because having a bunch of illiterate peasants directly controlling all industry in a largish economy seemed problematic.
>>543038 It means that each worker owns an equal share of the profits and also the business is governed democratically. For less radical approaches there is simply minarchy with a high degree of autonomy, like the Mondragon corporation.
It is based on the idea that rather than redistributing the profits from a boss each worker would be entitled to the profits he directly generated.
>>543038 >What does it mean for workers to own the means of production?
Quite literally it means that the workers own the means by which they produce goods.
Consider a cobbler in ye olden times, who owned his own workshop (which may have just been his house), and owned all his tools and hardware. When he created a shoe, he also owned that shoe, though he could choose to sell it to somebody for a profit. Back in the 19th century this was called "free labor" (as compared to wage labor, or "wage slavery" by its detractors).
Now consider a worker in a shoe factory today. He doesn't own the factory (or have any share in it), he doesn't own any tool in the factory, he doesn't own any resource used to create shoes, and when he produces a shoe (or contributes to its production) he does not own the shoe or any part of it. The industrial proletariat owns only one relevant thing - his labor. The shoe factory worker isn't selling shoes, he's selling his labor, and instead of making profit he is given a wage. This is what Marx meant by the "alienation" of the worker, both from the product of his labor and the act of producing.
Marx doesn't really articulate a political theory so much as a sociological and economic theory. As such, he doesn't really address what kind of concrete method of political organization would best achieve "workers owning the means of production." A business cooperative is presumably one way of doing it (e.g. workers all own a share in the enterprise, and thus collectively own the means of production they all use), while the Soviets argued that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant that state ownership of the means of production essentially WAS worker ownership. (Notably, by "dictatorship" Marx meant the rulership of a single class, and not a single man, as we assume "dictatorship" to mean today.)
>>544600 >>544600 It's not just about control. It's also sharing in capital gains (and losses, for those people that say communism leads to people with zero responsibility). It's all about dat capital.
>>544634 >It's also sharing in capital gains (and losses, for those people that say communism leads to people with zero responsibility). It's all about dat capital.
You can't have workers control if "capital" exists because then you have a schitzophrenic relationship to production: alienated worker controlled by alienating capitalist. The fact that you play both roles doesn't change that you play them both.
>>543214 >But first, they thought you had to have the government take over all the businesses instead of independent workers communes running them, because according to them we're not ready to just have the workers take over the businesses themselves.
The purpose of the state to Marx and others is to resolve class conflict in favor of the ruling class. The point of having the proletariat take over the government (and keep control by maintaining the threat of force on the government if they choose to betray the proletariat, eg right to ownership of weapons and violence against the government) is to allow the proletariat the means to eradicate any remaining bourgeoisie who seek to reapply the old ways of capitalism. This is not dissimilar to the stamping out of feudalistic tendency in the western world during the early stages of the capitalist state.
The socialist state will still be kept around as a means to answer logistical problems involved with coordinating production of goods on a larger scale. The state's primary function after the establishment of a 'dictatorship of teh proletariat' (read: this means a complete subjagation of the previous ruling class, the capitalists, under the boot of the proletariat owned state so that they may not resist the communist revolution) is administrative. It solves problems that are too big for smaller communes or states to solve themselves.
If a business CAN be run by the workers totally successfully without the need to solve big logistical problems, then there's no need for the state to step in. And since the state is already completely controlled by the proletariat, the phrase you uttered here-
>you had to have the government take over all the businesses instead of independent workers communes running them
is semi-paradoxical. The workers (anyone who works for a wage today) have the state and its representatives under their boot in a socialist society simply by having the violent means to revolt against the state should it betray them. And of course, a socialist state will have instantaneous recall of local representatives should they not perform up to par. The state doesn't own socialist businesses, it will help them if it is necessary. It will coordinate production quotas and other tasks, of course with the input of those it serves, the workers.
Communism is an ideology that is for the people in every possible facet. The issue is that communist states in the past were not sufficiently controlled by the workers of those societies. Communists must take care to not repeat this same mistake in the future.
Forgot to have a (cont.) at the beginning of my first post. Please forgive me.
>>545050 I'll try to answer this one satisfactorily for you.
In an anarcho-communist society, which I'll define as a communist society with the absence of a state, an individual who did not want to contribute to the commune's wealth would not receive any of the benefits of the commune. They would not share in the wealth of the commune's collective output, unless the commune dictated otherwise. If I were to have my say in what the rule should be, I would say that you should contribute to the overall material wealth of the many in order to receive your fair share of it. This is all assuming you're an able-bodied worker who is able to provide for the commune but choose not to.
However, let me touch on something. You commit a critical mistake in your example >>545056 here. You say a dude has a farm, as if he owns it. This is not so in a socialist/communist society. The farm is not owned by any one individual, but its owned by 'the many'- the members of the commune. It is publicly owned, not privately owned. Why is it publicly owned? Because it's a means of production- you can produce milk there, as you stated.
>>545145 Why is this justified? Because everyone else has agreed to sharing the output of the public means of production amongst each other at the commune's stockcade, an acknowledgement of the fact that in a world where production of the necessities of life is social- ie it takes many people to create the stuff that you and I need to live- it's only fair that everyone gets to share in the material wealth created. Under capitalism, the wealth is given mostly to the owning class, the bourgeoisie. They control a vast amount of the wealth around the world because they claim ownership to the means of production and thus a hefty percentage of the profit created by it. But the wealth that they have is money- exchange value to Marx. The wealth that the commune is sharing is the material products of means of production, like a carton of milk or finely smelted steel. We're not sharing money amongst one another. We're sharing things that have a use- use values according to Marx.
So, to answer your question again, if a dude made some milk on a farm after entering into the commune that owns the farm and decided he wanted to keep it for himself, thus breaking the fundamental agreement of the commune, he'd probably get a stern talking to. And if he didn't change his mind after that, he'd probably get kicked out.
I hope that was a good enough answer for you. If you have any other questions, I'll do my best to answer them. And if anyone else would like to debate flaws in my logic, do so. I'm here to learn.
>Value comes from labour >No, it doesn't you retard *provides example* > No you don't understand, Marx said..... (strange terminology/symbols that only Marxists use) > Oh, I see. Marginalists explain why Marxists are wrong in Marxist terms > No no no, Capital is a work POLITICAL ECONOMY not ECONOMICS
>>545467 Post-graduate marginalists know who Bohm-Bawerk were. Though they tend not to know the history of their own discipline and its relation to utilitarianism.
>What does a good refutation of the Labor Theory of Value look like? They tend to centre on the transformation problem without realising that Marx isn't describing a static system of balance, but a changing system of chaotic attraction.
Normally we don't get to the undergraduate strawman here, most people assume that Marx had a positive programme.
Think about a factory, a factory is a mean of production of something, in a socialist State the workers are the dominant class, so that factory must belong to the State through an institution that regulates the production of the product that are made in that factory, and not to a single citizen.
Marxist theory at least applied to history i think shows that conflict between a ruling power and those below them eventually bubbles over resulting in a change in the structure of society. Pre-feudalism to feudalism, feudalism eventually led to capitalism which gave people the ability to move freely through the social ladder despite their birth provided they were industrious enough. Communism was the supposed end point of all this where after so many revolutions we eventually end up in this perfect society.
As far as workers controlling the means of production I think it means they were not just mindless worker drones but all had a say in the direction the production would take. Unfortunately that isnt very efficient.
>>543308 >the Soviets argued that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant that state ownership of the means of production essentially WAS worker ownership
so am I correct in assuming that a major difference between anarcho-communism and the communism of the USSR is that anarcho-communists want the ownership of the means of production to be based on autonomous communes of workers while the communists believed that the state's ownership of the means of production would be also the workers' ownership, since the state was a workers' state?
>>546665 As a third party to your discussion I would say yes.
That is more or less the distinction. If the State is owned or controlled by the working class than anything owned by the State is, by extension, owned by the workers.
Then the idea of Anacho-Communism is literally just strict communism as the ultimate goal of Communism was not just the establishment of social classes but also money and the State.
Anarchists and Communists only really split apart from one another when it came to the role of the state in the immediate stages of revolution. Anarchists wanted immediate abolition while the Communists sought to use it as a tool before discarding it.
Marxist-Leninists, or what you call Communism of the USSR, also believe that the Revolution, besides being violent, also must have a (or more) central leader(s). While it certainly helps organize the revolution, and simplifies the state creation after the revolution, it's certainly prone to fall into a dictatorship.
This was especially true after Stalins take over: all other revolution that worked they way Stalin/lenin (to a lesser degree) would gain support from the Soviets, making it more predominant and leading to the fact that may people use Communism and Marxist Leninism interchangeability, which is wrong, because it democracy (as in the process, not the system) seems to be kicked out, but was one factor marx said to be necessary, while Lenin didn't value it too much.
>>543147 Funny because Norks don't actually call themselves communist anymore and China does. Both don't have communism, both have state capitalism with varying degrees of openness (China ofc infinitely more).
>>546665 This is basically accurate. The main left complaint with the Soviet Union is that it was not communism because the "Worker's State" did not in fact represent the workers, so state ownership of the means of production was not worker ownership, and without worker ownership of the means of production, you don't have communism.
Certainly the USSR argued that it was a state of workers and the worker councils, or "soviets" - thus the name - but critics, particularly of the left, argued that it was in fact a state of the "nomenklatura," the new political elite in the Soviet Union which came to control all facets of society and the economy and basically just replaced the capitalists or aristocrats as a new ruling class.
The problem of representation isn't strictly a communist thing - a representative democratic government claims to be a government "of the people," but some would argue that in modern democracies the government acts chiefly in the interests of the political class, plutocrats, interest groups, the military, or some other elite subset of the population. A Leftist claiming that the USSR wasn't "really communism" because it was not actually a state of the workers is coming from roughly the same rhetorical perspective as someone claiming [insert modern democracy here] isn't "really democracy" because power is effectively monopolized by an elite group.
IMO, in both cases there is a problem of scaling, in which the larger the society gets, the more bureaucracy and administrative complexity is required and the less direct the representation becomes, creating opportunities for government capture and the alienation of the administrative elite from the "masses" they are intended to represent.
>>547888 >Yes they are. Companies are owned controlled by their shareholders. Last time I checked companies were actually controlled by a coalition of line managers and the executive appointments of the board. Shareholders are two steps away from the executive of the company and exert no influence given the responsibility to maximise shareholder return that the board lives under.
Do learn about the firm.
>This is exactly what happens with a publicly traded firm
No it isn't. Shareholder meetings are as exactly as democratic as the Stalinist workplace meetings of the 1950s.
I think you've got a lot to catch up on. But then again, my impression of management academics is that they're nice people who don't do empirical work other than n=10 qual surveys.
Leninists argue that you need to form a "vanguard" of the most committed Communists to be able to drive society through it's historical development into Communism, the idea was the USSR with its central planning would be able to go through Capitalism with less of a toll on the people than in a free market also since the most committed Socialists are leading it, the course of development would obviously be about bringing Communism.
Of course this is a load of shit. I enjoy Lenin's writing, but he was a political opportunist who had to come up with an excuse to take control when he could, when society simply wasn't ready by Marxist material standards for Communsim.
Anarchism makes much more sense since it's structured inherently to not allow such heirarchies form as "Government" would be structured as a flat society, but Anarchism has its own issues
A: Noone wants to spend all their time thinking about Politics B: Most people don't ever want to think about politics C: People would rather other people to think about harder issues for them.
Other issues is that Anarchism is inherently weak to outside threats, Anarchists have gotten their ass kicked in every conflict ever, from Ukraine to Spain to Americas to China.
Honestly I think the solution for Communism is probably some form of representative government, but the way the Government is formed is completely different than a modern heirarchical government, also that most power would flow between worker managed cooperatives.
>Be a communist worker >own the means of production >get paid >acquire materials >the materials are yours >transform the materials into a mean of production in your spare time using only your labor >your brand new mean of production is no longer yours, it belongs to the worker collective
>>552738 >be unemployed >hunt rats for food >grow beard and hair way too long >collect your feces and cut nails >use all of that to create a mean of production >suddenly its not yours and the collective literally owns your shit
>>552548 Not that guy, but what difference does it make if that is not "substantive" control, whatever that is? An employee can own part of the company, receive some of the profits and have a say in management decisions. He can also sell his share of the company to whomever he wants. If that is not social ownership, I don't know what is.
>>552785 Attempt to exercise control over the direction of the firm through a shareholder meeting.
Actually fuck that. Buy one share in 10 companies. Attend all AGMs. Watch the vote on the floor. Watch the motions put to the floor. Read the corporate charter & statutory law. Pay particular attention to the statutory obligation to maximise shareholder return. Consider what that means for a shareholder's "right" to dispose of their property. Look up some minority shareholder suits against boards where the majority shareholders stacked the board and the minority plaintiff argued that the board didn't act to maximise shareholder return.
Owning shares does not mean controlling the decisions or directions of the firm. It means a vague right to appoint (based proportionately on ownership of voting shares) the board who have an obligation which forces them to act in an incredibly limited number of ways, and is normally limited to ensuring proper corporate governance to maximise shareholder return: ie: the appointment of a competent CEO and the oversight of their actions on a periodic (quarterly etc.) basis to ensure that the CEO is acting in the remit to maximise shareholder return.
FFS, do only anarchists know how the firm operates?
>>552809 The first happens in what most Marxists call "socialism" through the action (thanks Paris commune) of communes of the productive workers themselves.
In FULL COMMUNISM the working class doesn't exist, as there is no differentiation in control of the productive apparatus as the councils have either dissolved into society, or incorporated the entirety of society within themselves (either way, same result).
Pay doesn't exist in either situation as the value form is halted. In the first situation the working class only exists as its self-transcendence through the destruction of the social relationships that other classes occupy.
>>552805 The employee might not have a direct saying in the decisions, but then who does? The CEO? Well, he is not necessarily the owner of the company. Therefore the owner is whoever owns the shares that make up the company. >try to exercise your saying in a shareholder meeting That is not the question. It is still a form of social ownsership regardless.
>>545440 Labor is only valuable when it creates value. Say I'm a painter, and I spend 8 hours on a shitty painting that no one wants. The fruits of my labor are then less valuable than, say, 8 hours of fixing people's plumbing. Not all labor is equal.
>>552826 Marxism is not only an economic theory, it is also a universal point of view. For Marx, during the dictatorship of the proletariat people would be so used to sharing things that government would end up becoming obsolete. It could have worked in small communities (like 100 people), but would never work in a more complex and diverse society.
>>545440 I have an album of pictures of my marriage that I would never sell. It has infinite value to me. A chinese guy has no interest at all in my album. Therefore value is subjective, doesn't matter the work used to produce it.
>>552832 >robits do all the planning and distributing literally impossible outside of a "The Matrix" scenario. There is no efficient way to centrally generate, collect, filter and process the information about each individual's needs and means available to satisfy them, and then make decisions and act upon those in a timely manner.
And no, it is not a matter of computing power.
If robots will ever bring about utopia, it will be through drastically increased output, not planning.
>>552845 The term for this in Marxian LTV is "socially necessary labour time." It is set by the average Organic Composition of Capital, or mechanisation and skill. It is central to Marx's argument regarding the expansion of capital.
>>552833 >>try to exercise [control] in a shareholder meeting >That is not the question. It is still a form of social ownsership regardless.
Ownership in Marx is entirely about effective control. If you'd like to straw-man Marx then fuck off.
>>552911 I'm not an expert on marxism nor did i say that i had superior opinions, but i least i read him. >What do you think of Marx's theory of value? Unfalsifiable shit, just like subjective value. >Or what comprises social ownership? Industrial democracy.
>>552920 >animals have friends Show me your talking dog, sir.
>People worried about their friends and family even in hunter-gathering times. Gatherer-hunters worried about their sacred gens or moiety, and to a larger extent their tribal affiliation. The density of relationships within a gens isn't reducible to "friends and family" as you comprehend them, because your comprehension is coloured by the anachronism of friends and family in a bourgeois society.
>>552915 You are lost in a desert. No water for two days. Finally, you arrive at a small shop in the middle of nowhere. The shopkeeper offers you two products: a glass of water he just got from the sink or a diamond he spent years perfecting with his sons. Which product would you be willing to pay more for? Do you need another example? LTV is one of Marx's biggest fuck ups.
>>552945 Oh, come on, mate. You are forcing it too much. People have always had friends and affection. Maybe in different ways throughout history, but the chemical reactions inside your brain that correspond to affection have was always been there. Also, >friends have to talk to each other. So deaf people can't have friends?
>>552964 >Postmodern shit. Which is weird because the incommensurability of ideas is high modernism. Perhaps you don't like it because you're a horrible disgusting structuralist, but outside of your feeble play pen people have been willing to work with the commensuration of ideas and the incommensurable for ages. It is called "reading." There's a higher form of it you appear to be entirely unaware of given your positivistic clinging to Popperianism (a joke and a half of full cream bull's milt).
>>552960 He added the point of "industrial democracy."
>>552950 Neither of these are commodities since they're being offered as single point in time sales outside of social reproduction. Thanks for playing, read Marx next time.
>>552990 If the goods are reproducible commodities in a competitive market, the shopkeeper won't be able to sell him the water for a price higher than the diamond, since any other seller would be aware of the relative prices.
First. The information we're dealing with is a lot more complicated than units bought and units produced, human needs and desires are ever-changing and context dependent, this kind of information is hard to effectively express in rational terms, there are way too many feelings involved for a computer to understand. If a computer scientist cannot understand his wife, he cannot possibly program a machine that does.
Second. This kind of information is hard to effectively obtain, since most of it will remain inside the individual's mind, for any action taken, and purpose behind said action, there are a thousands of other possible actions and purposes that were not taken by the individual, how do we get knowledge over those?
Third. Time is of the essence, by the time the relevant information is expressed in a way that can be fed or obtained by the machine and the moment it is decided and acted upon, said information will already be obsolete.
>>553005 That doesn't matter. There is no competition in that little shop in the desert. So Marx's theory fails in the case of monopolies? If there were competition, it would be more of a question of scaricity than anything else.
>>552996 >That is not even a real thing. You are literally making this up. In English it is normally termed "primitive communism."
>>553005 You're assuming that the OCC of diamond and water production is identical, and that the average socially necessary labour time for producing the diamond and water is identical.
"Instant" prices don't even. If you want to introduce a time factor then I can introduce the circuit of production of capital as a social reproduction and observe the flows of capital from diamond production to water production as the opportunity for OCC super profits develop.
>>553022 >So Marx's theory fails in the case of monopolies? As i said, classical economists were interested in mass produced commodities, not an hypothetical magical monopoly on the water in a desert town. Marx does mention supply and demand though, since values =/= prices, if that's what you are asking.
>If there were competition, it would be more of a question of scaricity than anything else. Not really. If there is competition relative prices should match relative efforts in terms of labour, otherwise it would be irrational not to shift production to the relatively overpriced commodity. In other terms, if the profit from working an hour in getting water allowed you to buy more than an hour perfecting the diamond, if would be irrational to work in perfecting diamonds. The theory doesn't really run into problems until you add fixed capital.
>The workers own the means of production Ah, looks like someone has never worked in factory. The last person you want to have any kind of power is a worker. It turns into a hereditary monarchy inside of one, and good luck trying to get a job inside one without being the son/friend/niece/etc.. of someone inside.
>>553043 >You're assuming that the OCC of diamond and water production is identical Assuming the opposite would be needlessly complex for this discussion.
>and that the average socially necessary labour time for producing the diamond and water is identical No. When i said "won't be able to sell him the water for a price higher than the diamond" i was assuming that the labour time necessary for the diamond was higher, not (necessarily) equal.
>>553043 >primitive communism Still, that is just the view of one man, one whose predictions and economic systems have fail. There are hundreds of other historians, economists ans social theorists that have had a much higher rate of success with different historical views. You see, that is the problem with Marxism: everything makes sense, but only from a very specific point of view. You can't have socialism without the labour theory of value. This one, in turn, does not make sense without dialectic materialism. The list goes on. One would think that, considering that none of his predictions became true, people would realise that the castle of cards crumbles down.
>>553096 Socialism predates the marxist theory of value, and the latter doesn't need dialectic materialism at all, in fact marxism theory of value derives from ricardo's, which has absolutely nothing to do with any dialectical philosophy.
>>553099 >Not at all. It is exactly the same as departments IIa and IIb in volume II. So? It wasn't needed in the discussion.
>Sounds like the socially necessary labour time for diamonds is 0 because they're not realisable. The guy asked me to assume that "those are commodities (...) to be sold in a market."
>>553116 >So? It wasn't needed in the discussion. You mean the bit where Marx specifically shows value normalisation across separate consumption commodity bundles is irrelevant to your specious gedanken experiment?
>The guy asked me to assume that "those are commodities (...) to be sold in a market." Wow, if only you could force people to buy.
>>553137 >An anon posed a scenario with no constant capital and i didn't see any need to add it. What's the big deal?
An anon also posted a single instance transaction as if it was relevant to Marx's attempts to uncover the laws of motion of capital.
Everytime I attempt to show how the thought experiment is a useless piece of shit in relation to Marx's description of capital as a changing, time bourne system that attempts to explain constant and variable capital's proportions across multiple commodity bundle sectors, you retreat towards that same anon's fucking useless metaphors.
How many arrows are you trading for deer right now. SPOT PRICE CHECK
>>553116 I'm not saying that Marx created the LTV. It was even used by Adam Smith. The thing is that his theories don't make sense without it or any other piece of the puzzle. If something doesn't add up, all else fails. Take his view of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, for example. There would come a time when capitalism would be destroyed by its own contradictions. From that would arise socialism and all else. It seems that capitalism is going pretty strong and all attempts at his theories have ended in failure or become completely misguided. Does that mean that capitalism is a sustainable system, at least on the long run? Well, from there the rest of his ideology crumbles.
You know how a corporation works? It's precisely like that except that workers have a share by default, representing the effort they put into the corporation which isn't reflected in their wages.
The government doesn't need to be involved any more than it is now.
Also, labor theory of value is precisely wrong.
The thing is worth whatever somebody wants to pay for it. So the labor is worth whatever somebody wants to pay for the thing it was used to make. If you're getting less than this for your labor, you're being screwed.
>>553152 >The thing is that his theories don't make sense without it or any other piece of the puzzle. Well, every "piece of the puzzle" existed before marx independently of each other (see utopian socialists for socialism, hegel for dialectics, feuerbach for materialism, classical economists for the LTOV), so claiming that they can't exist without each other doesn't make much sense. Even after marx each one of the "pieces" have been used by people that rejected the others. Socialism doesn't start nor end with marx.
Smith couldn't account for rent, let alone profit.
Ricardo had a better bang.
Neither Smith nor Ricardo dealt with surplus value's formation (ie: labour versus labour power). Average socially necessary abstract labour also wasn't part of their conception.
Marxian LTV is quite different to Smith or Ricardo's.
>Does that mean that capitalism is a sustainable system, at least on the long run?
Marx has two arguments on this point, rate of profit crises within 7 year fixed capital replacement cycles, and OCC crises within volume and scope of commodification.
As you'd know from reading Mandel, capitalism has managed to push back the political elements of crisis through disorganising the proletariat, and has managed to circumvent OCC crises within a certain volume of capital by primitive accumulation of non-capitalist commodities either in pre-captialist markets (Indian cotton) or through the expansion of the bundle of goods comprising the wage (the reintroduction of meat into the diet of the English worker).
No, actually reading what you're making strawmen about would be too hard. Go read Bohm-Bawerk for fucks sake.
>>543147 Pointing out the possibly least successful communist state of the myriad of them that existed isn't making you look particularly smart. Also North Korea devolved into a de facto military dictatorship a while ago.
>>553190 >Socialism doesn't start nor end with marx. The modern widespread view of socialism does. Also, are you admiting that Marx's ideology is incorrect, then? Since from his point of view every piece depends on the other, none can be wrong. Rousseau had his "socialist" view of the original human society and Adam Smith believed in the LTV. However, their ideas can be separated from each other. That can't be done with Marxism.
>>553230 >The modern widespread view of socialism does. Also, are you admiting that Marx's ideology is incorrect, then? Since from his point of view every piece depends on the other, none can be wrong.
Anon just said that this is not the case. Every modern socialist admits that Marx was wrong. You can now say 'aha, every socialist says Marx was wrong about EVERYTHING' if you like.
>Rousseau had his "socialist" view of the original human society and Adam Smith believed in the LTV. However, their ideas can be separated from each other. That can't be done with Marxism.
Which LTV? Why socialist in quotes? Rousseau did not believe that humans worked together for mutual gain and profit, to mitigate individual risk?
It can't be done with Marxism because you have defined it as everything Marx wanted in one package. In this sense, there are no Marxists but Marx, and he is dead. Socialists don't want everything Marx wrote that he wanted. They just want, at the most basic level, some degree of land reform, and more democratic systems.
>>553230 >are you admiting that Marx's ideology is incorrect, then? Sure, marx's ltov is unfalsifiable, materialism is simplistic, and dialectics is just generally retarded. I just defend him because i'm bored and he's generally attacked by idiots. I don't think this affects the validity or invalidity of socialism/communism at all though.
>>545467 Because labor theory of value completely ignores utility and demand and operates with a zero sum game when it comes to exchange. I can work my shit off digging a random ditch in my yard, it doesn't mean the labor I put into it has any value.
>>553231 Last time I looked into pre-1990 Juche, the Juche ideology as a social practice in the DPRK required a nomenklatura bound to and backed by the great leader. It is reasonable to describe this class as collectively owning North Korea.
>>553252 >unfalsifiable This is not a good criteria for useful knowledge in the social sciences or humanities. It isn't even good in the sciences. (Astronomy and other observational sciences, for example).
>>553263 >It's pretty obvious the only LTV these people can conceptualize is 1 hour of making widgets is worth the same as 1 hour painting with Bob Ross
That's obviously wrong.
The hour is worth whatever you did with the hour. If you and some other people took an hour making a thing and negotiations don't start at one share each from the sale of the thing, you're being screwed by whoever claims more than one share should be the starting point.
And in a market system, this problem wouldn't come up, since another employer would offer you the better deal. Unless employers were in some kind of cartel. Or unemployment meant destitution.
>>553207 >Smith couldn't account for rent, let alone profit. >Marxian LTV is quite different to Smith or Ricardo's. Holy fuck, mate. I'm not saying it was the exact same thing. Even though they differed in complexity and detail, the LTV of each thinker was still a LTV. > Go read Bohm-Bawerk I have. >As you'd know from reading Mandel I can't see the reason for reading obscure marxist authors apart from simple curiosity. They all might have each their own view as to why capitalism has succeded as a system and socialism has failed (or has failed to be tried). At the end, I would rather spend my limited time on this earth reading authors that do matter in the context of reality. You might say that Mandel has the perfect explanation for the success of capitalism. Well, so does Hayek. Which one better relates to the reality of facts?
>>553275 >Last time I looked into pre-1990 Juche, the Juche ideology as a social practice in the DPRK required a nomenklatura bound to and backed by the great leader. It is reasonable to describe this class as collectively owning North Korea.
>>553287 >Okay, it's a typical monarchy then. Monarchy isn't a great description of the bureaucratic fights involved in a nomenklatura society. Ðilas' New Class, and other similar hypothetisations capture what's happening better. It certainly isn't a feudal or tributary society, but I also actually wonder if value circulates in North Korea. I really do doubt it. I mean value clearly circulates in Cuba.
>Unfalsifiable knowledge is acceptable if it is formally derived from falsifiable knowledge. You really hate geology, biology and astronomy, don't you?
>>553293 Most soviet-style states had or have a much more horizontal nomenklatura focused on either capital-as-value or capital-as-utilities-output maximisation. North Korea doesn't seem to maximise.
>>553242 > In this sense, there are no Marxists but Marx, and he is dead. Socialists don't want everything Marx wrote that he wanted. They just want, at the most basic level, some degree of land reform, and more democratic systems. So everyone who has ever called themselves a marxist was not actually a marxist? Who are you to tell them that? Some people believed in every word Marx said and followed his ideology from the revolution of the masses to historical materialism. Were they not Marxists? >Socialists don't want everything Marx wrote that he wanted Marxist theories can't be separated from each other. It is one package,
>>553310 >Monarchy isn't a great description of the bureaucratic fights involved in a nomenklatura society. Ðilas' New Class, and other similar hypothetisations capture what's happening better. It certainly isn't a feudal or tributary society, but I also actually wonder if value circulates in North Korea. I really do doubt it. I mean value clearly circulates in Cuba.
These things happen in every monarchy. The difference is only in what the aristocrats are called.
>So everyone who has ever called themselves a marxist was not actually a marxist? Who are you to tell them that? Some people believed in every word Marx said and followed his ideology from the revolution of the masses to historical materialism. Were they not Marxists?
Not by your definition of Marxism, no.
>Marxist theories can't be separated from each other. It is one package,
So you say. So this ideology only existed in one persons head.
>>553322 What is my definition of Marxism? >So you say Yes, because Marxism is an ideology influenced by different ideas. Marxism only works inside the marxist world view, therefore its parts cannot be separated.
>>553283 >You might say that Mandel has the perfect explanation for the success of capitalism. Well, so does Hayek. Which one better relates to the reality of facts? Necessarily Mandel because he is methodologically obliged to reference the world of empirical observations. Hayek is methodologically obliged to reject the world of empirical observations in favour of argument ab initio.
You really ought to know that.
>I am explaining the relationship between the value of the product and the work that went into making it. Define value and work then. Because it really looks like a Smithian LTV from here.
>>553322 >These things happen in every monarchy. The difference is only in what the aristocrats are called.
This is a really ahistorical view of social relations. I don't know if you're proud or ashamed or unaware of that.
>>543038 This post is kind of misleading, Marx wanted an eventual transition to anarchy but supported a proletarian dictatorship initially, where as Mr. Balkunin guy said, uh.. probably not a good idea considering that offering the power of the aristocratic elite to a different group wouldn't do much. And well, he was right to a certain degree
>Define value and work then. Because it really looks like a Smithian LTV from here.
The value of the product is whatever the customer is willing to pay for it. Work is the effort that goes into making that product. The work is worth what that product sells for, one share per contributor, less the costs of parts.
>This is a really ahistorical view of social relations. I don't know if you're proud or ashamed or unaware of that.
How do you describe North Korea and Juche while referencing another system?
>>553378 >How do you describe North Korea and Juche while referencing another system?
A nomenklatura society with an ossified or completely dead circulation of capital, combined with a total absence of drive to maximise capital either as value (export dollars, ie: China 1980s-) or as total output of utilities (tanks, ie: Soviet Union 1930s).
Also as an imperialist (Leninist sense) colony of China.
>>553361 Let me ask you something: can you look out your window? Do you see capitalism at the edge of the abyss? Do you recognise the massive prosperity generated by capitalism that was unprecedented in human history? Why stick with socialism/communism/marxism/general leftist utopias since all attempts at them have ended in starvation, poverty, corruption, opression and destruction of cultural heritages? Is it so hard to see that a free society that employes the capitalist system is more prosperous, democratic, happy and peaceful?
>>553409 Capitalism as in the specific economic system of the western world, the first world, over the past century and a half, the one that continues to the exist today? It won the cold war, but it was not made up of free markets just getting it done, but of corporate encouraged government spending and guided markets, and political corruption.
Don't confuse the two capitalism definitions. Mises Academy has a very attractive utopian definition we can all agree with, but don't take that as support of anything we've seen over the part two centuries.
Please invite me to a thread on either of those. IIRC China's second trading halt for 6 months for institutional investors has just occurred after a 7% in a day fall.
For recent writings on the OCC crisis, you couldn't go further than Dyer-Witheford on the limits of accumulation of capital in the IT sector. A number of predictions regarding the Fordist worker as the social worker (Tronti, et al) have proved to be pathetically premature and based on a failure to comprehend the difference between configurations in the structure of exploitation at the point of production and the general tendencies of the laws of motion. (Processed World (periodical) takes up some of this before the 1990 cut off).
Personally, the "post-Fordist" worker is utter garbage produced by masturbatory Italians engaged in intellectual (if at least not organisational) substitutionalism.
>Do you recognise the massive prosperity generated by capitalism that was unprecedented in human history? And the massive misery that is simultaneously unprecedented. Kind of an on going theme in Marxist political economy and historiography that one.
>Why stick with socialism/communism/marxism/general leftist utopias I don't. I'm a praxis Marxist.
>since all attempts at them have ended in starvation, poverty, corruption, opression and destruction of cultural heritages? You forget the case where they end with the flower of my class dead in ditches besides walls, head stripped open.
Or learning, as CIA advises us, to fly as best we can.
Never mind those attempts which ended with a stratum bought off into the lower reaches of upper management through parliament and stipendiary positions.
>Is it so hard to see that a free society What did Gandhi, that horrible bastard, say about English civilisation?
>that employes the capitalist system is more prosperous, democratic, happy and peaceful? Excepting me and all the people I know.
>>553452 Capitalism as in the economic system, its real definition. I think it has been proved that the freer the markets, the freer and the most prosperous the people. >it was not made up of free markets just getting it done, but of corporate encouraged government spending and guided markets, and political corruption. Then just imagine if the markets were free! Centralised state planning has mostly had negative results, I hope we can agree on that. Funny how we changed from "socialism is the future" to "capitalism is bad."
>>553409 Nobody doubts capitalism's capacity to generate growth, the same way stalinist russia or slavist america were once growing at an amazing speed. Which won't stop people from disliking capitalism, stalinism, or slavery. On the other hand, capitalism is in direct opposition to democracy. Finally, that pic is retarded, first because the index is a joke, and second because what's relevant is the policies the countries followed through time not those present now (i'm assuming you're trying to correlate economic freedom with development).
>>553470 >I think it has been proved that the freer the markets, the freer and the most prosperous the people. I'm pretty sure your citations are going to universally result in question begging, NTS, and the conclusion as the premise.
Not that there's anything wrong with the work, it is just way too politicised to pretend that your citations are neutral social science.
And as for a counter example, the free market in English land and labour resulted in penury, poverty, starvation, revolt, a poor law, murder by night and a precipitous decline in living standards from the average labourer eating meat to the average proletarian living by bread alone. Please feel free to NTS your way out of Hammond & Hammond's data.
>Centralised state planning has mostly had negative results But not when it is done by a Firm, of course.
>>553462 >China's second trading halt for 6 months for institutional investors has just occurred after a 7% in a day fall. Let it fall. Intervening is just making things worse. >Excepting me and all the people I know. So this is an envy thing, then? I'm sorry if sitting in front of your computer past midnight on a workday isn't getting you anywhere. On the map I posted, compare the life of the average person in a any of the green countries to the life of someone in a not-green country. Who do you think lives in the most prosperous, democratic, happy, stable, and peaceful country? Sure, there are exceptions, but you can see a very strong pattern.
>>553470 >Capitalism as in the economic system, its real definition.
The definition used by the media and by most people. the dictionary definition, the definition used in economics 101, and the economy system that dominates the globe today are all called capitalism. They are not all the same thing.
>I think it has been proved that the freer the markets, the freer and the most prosperous the people.
It's just that the markets aren't free in the western world. We would be overall more prosperous if they were, but there are some who would be relatively less prosperous.
What could be more capitalist that Stalins Russia. Man owns company, employees have to follow rules, sells grain to pay for machine parts, industrializes, profits for shareholders, ie, party members, increases. Perfect capitalist system. And any who want to improve their life just have to be good enough to get promoted.
>>553505 >But not when it is done by a Firm, of course. Centralised STATE planning. The state has no incentive to work efficiently. Also, the firm internalises all transaction costs that it can, but turns to the market when needed. As the other poster would say, >"if you had read about the theory of the firm, you would know that".
> the free market in English land and labour resulted in penury, poverty, starvation, revolt, a poor law, murder by night and a precipitous decline in living standards from the average labourer eating meat to the average proletarian living by bread alone Are you talking about the industrial revolution here?
>>553534 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism >Capitalism is an economic system There is just one capitalism, and that is the economic system. All else are ideologies that emply capialism into their theories. >We would be overall more prosperous if they were, but there are some who would be relatively less prosperous. That is the mentality of the modern leftist. What is comperative advantage? Of course, lifting all trade barriers right now could result in chaos in some nations, as they are not prepared for it, and it would take some time until everything adjusted. In the long run, all countries would be better off.
>>553509 >Let it fall. Intervening is just making things worse. As I said, make a thread on >>>/news/ or >>>/pol/ and invite me over.
>So this is an envy thing, then? Is enlightened self-interest suddenly a bad thing?
>petty insult regarding time Because we all live in Buenos Aires?
I live in a Green country. Its HDI belies, until 1990, 15 years of recession for the working class with the attendant features. Make a guess whether the trend line follows the existing data and you'll get an answer if you start a thread on >>>/pol/ and invite me.
Consumption bundles, like alienation, are relative not absolute phenomena.
>>553561 >That is the mentality of the modern leftist. What is comperative advantage? Of course, lifting all trade barriers right now could result in chaos in some nations, as they are not prepared for it, and it would take some time until everything adjusted. In the long run, all countries would be better off. I'm not that guy but you'd do well to read about how south korea developed.
>There is just one capitalism, and that is the economic system. All else are ideologies that emply capialism into their theories.
Then capitalism is not in effect today. What would you call what was happening over the last two hundred years?
>That is the mentality of the modern leftist. What is comperative advantage? Of course, lifting all trade barriers right now could result in chaos in some nations, as they are not prepared for it, and it would take some time until everything adjusted. In the long run, all countries would be better off.
In the long run, all countries would be better off under the system socialists propose? Nice to hear.
>>553572 >States have as much incentives to please voters with good management as firms to please shareholders First, assuming that the citizens can vote. Second, states have the factor of coercion. Third, most people don't understand / care about politics or the economy to revolt against the status quo. Fourth, have you ever worked / depended on government? You can clearly see that public employees are not exactly the most motivated people, since they have job stability, no incentives and strong unions. Try changing something and see if they don't scream. Fith, government will do what is necessary to be reelected, which doesn't usually classifies good management.
>>553584 I have. "South Korea in the Fast Lane", by Young-Iob Chung. It was the subject of one of my first works in college. The country had low taxes, a minimal welfare state and, although there was state intervention involved (I do believe the government has some role to play in development, although minimal), it was mostly so it could liberalise the economy later.
>>553651 I haven't read Young-Iob Chung but your account clearly understates intervention and is outright wrong regarding its purpose. South Korea developed with subsidies, nationalized banks, an agrarian reform, an extremely authoritarian government, financial repression, managed exchange rate, managed interest rate, five year plans, wage repression, capital account control, FDI control, trade tariffs and controls, public-private coordination of production, export objectives, massive trade deficits, chaebol creations by the state, etc. South Korea decided what industries it considered strategic and then developed them through massive state intervention in every aspect of production, it was almost a directed economy. The result is a strategic integration in world commerce instead of the primarization that results from third world countries liberalizing their economies. Of course, in your pic south korea appears as a green country since it liberalized in the 80s/90s (which resulted in a unnecessary massive financial crisis while we're at it), while the poor african countries that are basically controlled by the IMF appear in red.
>>553697 >>553785 Which applies to shareholders. In fact the entire list is just either questioning the democracy of the hypothetical country, which is beyond the point, or applies to both the country and the firm.
>>553810 >>553778 >set centrally controlled market price for toilet paper >does not control the means of production for toilet paper >??? Honestly, it's just retardation. If they want the price to be low, they should subsidize the price it with oil money, but set the acquisition price to the cost of actually importing or producing it, since there are no state controlled factories that actually own the means of production for toilet paper.
>>553826 >muh health care Admittedly, in the countries where public health care is cheap, you don't have half the population actively trying to undermine it. Partisanism kills the efficiency of any program. Just imagine if half the shareholders were trying to undermine your company. It would be like trying to fight off a constant hostile acquisition.
>>553810 >Systematic corruption In the same level as the rest of LA. http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results >Government inneficiency Idem. >Corporatism ? >Burning money I don't even know what this means. Bolivia has low inflation and Ecuador doesn't even have its own currency. Right wing latin american governments have a long history of taking huge amounts of debt too so i don't see your point. >Luckily for Argentina, they have given the first step towards leavin their hole. Argentina "left the whole" during the 90s when it was the prodigy child of the IMF, which resulted in the worst crisis in its history. No intervention is certainly better than retarded intervention, but that doesn't imply that any intervention is the same.
>>553842 >subsidise will oil money You mean the oil that has never been worth so little? And the one extracted by inneficient and corrupt state companies? And the one that is already spent in numerous other things inside the monstrosity that is the venezuelan government?
>>553871 I'm just pointing out, trying to set prices on something you don't actually control the means of production for is exceptionally retarded.
>>553890 You could subsidize it with whatever money, and just make subsidized toilet paper a government welfare program. I mean, are people really going to abuse it? What are people going to do with that much toilet paper? A person can only poop so much.
>>553860 You surely haven't seen the healthcare in my country, And of course no one wants to let it go. They all think it's free and can't imagine any alternatives. It happens with almost all state services, from prision management to transportarion. People can't imagine private companies doing the current job of the government.
>>553861 Burning money as in spending the whole budget in frivolous things and short-term unsustainable welfare programmes. And yes, the military dictatorships were pretty shitty in almost all aspects, but they were still pro-government intervention, sometimes more so that the current socialist governments. >corruption and inneficiency in the same level of other LA countries That is what I was saying >corporatism Increases corruption, government control in the lives of citizens, lobbying for big businesses, inefficiency, more expensive products, less innovation, less competition...
>>553942 Not under in the scenario that anon proposed with a fixed demand and control over production. Reading your posts, it seems like your hatred for your government prevents you from having any opinion that isn't tangentially opposed to what you perceive that your government represents, which is pretty stupid and irrational.
>>553971 Again, the fiscal and monetary performance of those countries are similar to the rest of LA so you're arguing from based on your perception of what the left implies rather than facts. Your claim about the dictatorships being "pro-government intervention" is outright ridiculous.
>>553978 He asked if people were going to abuse it. I said yes. Either way, it is toilet paper as a state welfare programme (how ridiculous can this get?) started by an almost bankrupt government experiencing the biggest recession in the year. Sounds like a wonderful idea.
>>554005 Ha! Where do you think most state companies, protectionist measures and the increase in the size public sector (both in terms of number of workers and spending) came from? You know nothing, mate.
>>553572 This is completely false. In a State, responsibilities and accountability are dissolved between a huge mass of people. There is a very indirect process between the vote of the people, and the actual assignment of accountability to bad politicians/rewarding of good politicians.
In a corporation, responsibilities are quickly assigned and heads roll every day.
>>554416 >Are CEO's allowed to pick and chose which members of the board are allowed to vote on their position like when parties get together and draw districts? Quite often yes. There's a habit in corporate governance of Chairman of the Board / CEO.
>>554439 >Source? Coworkers who study corporate governance in the corridor over coffee. Unity of primary shareholder, Chair of Board, CEO is quite common in medium and the smaller large businesses. Typical of single generation structure corporate governance.
>>543038 >What does it mean for workers to own the means of production? What would a communist state without a government look like? To achieve this, you would need a perfect world, with inhuman people. So, I'm not drawing up a realistic vision here.
Both of those concepts tie into each other. The workers of any production facility also own the facility in question - and I mean *own*. Not the way anyone can own anything in a modern state. I'm talking "allodial title" own. The ownership is collective, and decisions about changes, expansion, and so on have to be made collectively. Their collective pay is essentially the net output of the facility, and they divide it up depending on their need. Positions are hence not "paid" differently based on difficulty of the job, or merit. The incentive needed would be the improvement for all, as well as a personal sense of accomplishment.
One layer above would be several of those facilities, trading among each other, maybe organizing joint projects. Facilities may appoint "negotiators" here, though those wouldn't be free to decide things on their own. Don't want new politicians. From there on, you could simply pile on larger organizatory layers, none of which actually have any real "power" - all decisions are made bottom-up, not top-down, passed as ideas up the chain. Of course, your facility could be part of multiple organizations on any layer.
Trade in such a system would probably be bartering between collectives, and be nonexistant within the collective.
The "state" would only consist of the land shared between those participating in the top layer, and hence may vary in size at any given time. The "government" would be the workers themselves.
>>555824 >To achieve this, you would need a perfect world, with inhuman people. Marx's argument is that …P… transforms the working class into a proletariat capable of that behaviour. Largely because they have no property form, not even "allodial" in the means of production, and project this as their future "property" relationship:
To work for pleasure To give the entirety of produce away To not use social commonwealth to control others
The proletariat learn this through …P… in capitalism. It is why you see heightened solidarity in workers movements such as the strike fund etc.
>>555842 We actually need modern heavy weapons and logistics and communication systems. Not fedoras with katanas.
>>556077 >What would he own under your system? Not that poster but he'd own nothing. And you wouldn't own the van either.
He'd have reasonable usufruct over your van, because it is productive, but then again you'd have reasonable usufruct over any other suitable van in society to continue your delivery.
But the reality is as a self-employed delivery driver people would look at you fucking funny, particularly in that they'd try and get your nephew to help you because 1 man manual handling is a recipe for injury.
The reality of the situation is that you and your mate would likely be autonomous deliverers through a networked relationship. People would tell you to stop working so fucking much and take time off, but if you were really horny for delivering things (say you and your van mate fucked between deliveries) I suppose they'd let you. But over coffee at the geographical deliverers council meeting / dinner they'd suggest you take more time off. Even if you use it to work on something, say wood turning in the man shed.
>>557335 Good luck finding non katakana wielding fedora wearers to join you in your noble quest. The fight against capitalism will be done with intelligence, Marxist theory, and most of all class. My name is Eugene and I'm a revolutionary. Enter my world.
>>558064 That's marvellous Eugene. See you on the barricades comrade. Solidarity! Death to the counter revolutionary reactionaries! Lead us on to our inevitable triumph. With your helmsmanship we cannot fail.
>>553931 >It happens with almost all state services, from prision management to transportarion. People can't imagine private companies doing the current job of the government. Because the experience of the Gilded Age, or of the recent systems in the US, has left them weary of such ideas. >inb4 "That wasn't/isn't real capitalism!" Right wing version of pic related, just with less purges.
>>559098 Fine, less purges, more "young girls jaws literally rotting inside their head for 20 bucks a month in today's money because the owner is a sadistic bastards that used white phosporus to reduce production cost" or "getting shot by the higher ups for getting in the way" tier.
Thread replies: 260 Thread images: 12
Thread DB ID: 422292
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.