will someone who knows a thing or two tell me why communism

>>2526420

Communism purports to be a totally scientific, economically based system of how classes interact and the necessary political pressures that they put upon each other, which inevitably leads from a capitalist society to a socialist and eventually to a communist society. Most of these principles and analysis is laid out in Das Kaptial.

Unfortunately, Das Kapital is a load of horseshit, and uses incredibly bad economics to "prove" its points, and almost the entire theoretical framework for this inevitable socialist takeover is based on bad math or bad assumptions. Also, despite their actions being necessary for the entire framework of Communist thought, you never really get a rigorous definition of social classes like "Aristocracy" or "Bourgeoisie" or "Proletariat", in the sense that while they are defined, there's no real reason given for why classes should be analyzed along those breakdown lines and not others, and starts to run into problems when these huge, ponderous "classes" actually contain numerous sub-groupings which don't have the same economic interests.

>>2526438
The easiest way to tell if someone has read capital is see how they name it
If das kapital, they have not read it.

>>2526455

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf
(page 10)

>The appreciation which “Das Kapital” rapidly gained in wide circles of the German working class is the best reward of my labours

I GUESS MARX NEVER READ IT, HUH!?

File: 1489666610108.jpg (23KB, 280x373px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 280x373px

>you live in a communist utopia
>you use your spare time to make beautiful little statues
>people love them, they look amazing, everybody knows about it. Its great art
>you give a few away. You can only make so many. People begin to offer you favors to get the next one.
>now people are in line. Youre still giving them away for free, but people are willing to trade their position in line for other things of value
>the receipts become currency
>the end

Please feel free to embellish this story and tell it to your degenerate commie friends.

Easy: Human nature

People like owning things. Imagine if someone came into your house and started using your bed and computer claiming there is no property.

>>2526420
If everyone holds equal power it is impossible for a government to enforce equality because the enforcers must have extra power.

>>2526492
I argue with my friends that communism doesn't work, my main reason is that it's been tried many times and it never works. Thats enough for me but not them.

File: 1488731724500.jpg (291KB, 900x696px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 900x696px

>>2526518

Tell them the fucking statue story

>>2526466
Stylistic choice by the translator. Marx of course wrote it as das kapital, but Germans of course write in German when writing German.

>>2526522
>thinks a 5 year old tier parable debunks communism
>doesn't know what communism is
>posts a nazi pic
I wonder what board you are from.

>>2526528

You mean, the translator who clearly never read it because he wrote it as 'Kaptial' and not 'Captial'.

Dumbass. For fuck's sake, when you say "Kapital" everyone knows you're talking about Marx's work. If you look up "Capital" in the books section of Amazon, you get

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Capital&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3ACapital

"Captial in the 21st century" is actually ahead of Marx, and there are a whole bunch of other books beside that I had never heard of, like "Capital: A novel" by some guy named Lanchester. The e mere usage of a German spelling in no way indicates that someone hasn't read the work you daft twit.

Communism requires a revolution, an act to drag those of higher status down to the ranks of the workers. The problem: shouldn't the bourgeoisie have rights too? They're people too, after all.

You shouldn't force a doctor to live like a lowly factory worker if he went to medical school for nine years and fucking EARNED his way to becoming a physician. Working hard and being bright should be rewarded more, not rewarded the same as the factory worker who dropped out of high school.

Communism has an overly utilitarian worldview, so it doesn't take personal freedom or rights and deserts into account. It causes upper and middle class people to leave your country, such as how Florida in the USA has pretty much absorbed Cuba's disillusioned middle class. That is, the middle class people who weren't killed in the revolution, another bad feature of communism. Requiring an often violent upheaval to get going is a major drawback.

>>2526541
>Vol 1 right there under picketty
Are you even trying

>>2526550

>Reading comprehension

So, in other words, it is NOT the first pick, and there are numerous other books that share the title with it.

File: War_deaths_caused_by_warfare.png (48KB, 1000x707px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1000x707px

Because it's based on false premises about the origins of conflict in human society.

Karl Marx was influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, he believed that every wickedness, every bad thing in human society was a result of class polarization which happened when man abandoned his "state of nature", when he abandoned "primitive communism". He believed that future communism would be a return on a higher level to this communism of prehistory, and the result would be a peaceful, idyllic society.

Thing is, modern archeology has shattered Rousseau's illusions. Primitive society was not a peaceful arcadia, it was a hellish war of all against all. Hobbes was right. Things that Marx associated with the development of class society, such as violence and religion, now we know they predate such developments and are prevalent, if not more prevalent, in primitive communities.

So, even if we get communism exactly as Marx desires it, even if worker's councils become the sole political, economical, social and economical authorities, the result would be the oligarchization of leadership at such councils (see Robert Michels on how the formation of oligarchies are inevitable in any political organization) and then the appearance of conflicts.

Actually, that already happened. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Red Guards groups were formed and assumed political control over several areas of society. The result? Civil war between differend Red Guard groups, each accusing the other of beign counter-revolutionary, kids killing each other, until the Army stepped in to stop the madness.

>>2526522
I will

File: 1489787191339.jpg (42KB, 639x650px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 639x650px

>>2526533

>easily debunk broken ideology with one simple example
>receive ad hominem

Thanks, you too.

>>2526556
Oh wow it's not number 1 even though it's 2nd
Cmon man u srs

Mahatma Gandhi — 'Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.'

>>2526420
Not at post-scarcity yet. Not socialist yet either.

>>2526492
This is okay with many communists. Many of them are just concerned about labor exploitation and arbitrary hierarchy based on ownership of material property.

>>2526546
>Communism requires a revolution, an act to drag those of higher status down to the ranks of the workers. The problem: shouldn't the bourgeoisie have rights too? They're people too, after all.
t. Romanov

Doctors are labor, not bourgeoisie meant by Marx. If on your tax returns, you mage a wage or a salary paid for by your boss, you're labor. If you're mostly capital gains or collect a salary from a company that you exert some sort of directorial control over the company, you're a capitalist. If you're self-employed you're also capitalist, but having every many that is his own little capitalist and doesn't hire and exploit any employees is a communist's wet dream.

>Working hard and being bright should be rewarded more, not rewarded the same as the factory worker who dropped out of high school.
Yes, Marx says as much in the Critique of the Gotha Program. You and Marx are on the same page when it comes to socialism.

>Communism has an overly utilitarian worldview, so it doesn't take personal freedom or rights and deserts into account.
Communism is radically individualistic.

> It causes upper and middle class people to leave your country, such as how Florida in the USA has pretty much absorbed Cuba's disillusioned middle class. That is, the middle class people who weren't killed in the revolution, another bad feature of communism. Requiring an often violent upheaval to get going is a major drawback.
You mean Bolshevism.

>>2526572
That's okay. The greedy can fight over the surplus while everyone else's needs are met. It's to each according to his need, not to each an exact same amount of shit divided equally regardless of how much work you do.

So the 1%er rich can fight over trying to get a $1000 bonus and after a few years they'll save up enough so they can wealth signal by buying a Lexus instead of a Toyota. It's not like the actual utility value or cost of production of Veblen goods actually matters much. Rich people are going to just buy Veblen goods to wealth signal.

>>2526570
And thus, using the word "Capital" on its own is ambiguous as to which text you're talking about, in a way that "Kapital" is not. What the fuck is so hard to understand about this?

centralization of authority and incompetent political appointees put in charge.

collectivized Soviet farms couldn't make enough grain. so they had to import food bought with oil exported to the capitalists.

poland let the farmers do their thing the farmers even had some say at the national level. poland made more than enough food.

File: 6816305182_aa46592ba6_b.jpg (348KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 768x1024px

>>2526566

Thank you friend

>>2526577

>this is ok

Then in what way does communism naturally follow capitalism, and not capitalism following communism?

Its like anarchy as an ideology. Sure, it'll last five minutes until a seven foot tall guy or a guy with 100 rifles declares himself warlord.

Communism works for five minutes until people produce luxuries that are not unlimited. So the communist response is either HEHE POL POSTER OMG SWEETIE, or in the case of the USSR, you just do not get luxuries.

Sounds really nice.

>>2526577
>Doctors are labor, not bourgeoisie meant by Marx.

I think this statement encapsulates most of what is so stupid about Marxist class definitions.

>>2526596
The results of production are not privately owned.

>>2526596
>Then in what way does communism naturally follow capitalism, and not capitalism following communism?
It doesn't. Socialism follow capitalism. Communism is first and foremost concerned about exploitation of labor based on the social construct of property and ownership of material wealth.

>Its like anarchy as an ideology.
Communism and anarchy are very related. The difference is anarchists said you can deconstruct the state and have paradise on earth. Marx said you need to create the proper conditions though socialism, then you can have anarchist utopia.

>Sure, it'll last five minutes until a seven foot tall guy or a guy with 100 rifles declares himself warlord.
That's the difference between Marxist communism and anarchism. There's no reason to fight because you don't need to exploit anyone else to meet your needs. And if you do, everyone else has 100 rifles and will shoot you for trying to be a dick, then get back to their pastoral lives because war is hell.

>Communism works for five minutes until people produce luxuries that are not unlimited.
Inequality is actually okay in communism. Communism is about meeting people's needs and giving everyone the means for self-actualization so they don't have to force themselves into a exploitative labor relationship. It's not actually about distributing things equally contrary to what you may believe. Even in the USSR things weren't distributed equally. The issue with the USSR is they had trouble meeting baseline needs, so it seemed like all those in poverty were equal in poverty.

>or in the case of the USSR, you just do not get luxuries.
Bolshevism is pretty stupid anyways.

File: IMG_1021.jpg (75KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x400px

English musician and singer-songwriter Keith Richards has an estimated net worth of $340 million. He is best recognized as one of the members of Rolling Stones, an English rock band.

>>2526601
It was 150 years ago. Definitions change. Especially since there was political motivation to change it. Bourgeoisie as meant by Marx means a capitalist who makes money by controlling capital, rather than earning money through labor. People can be a mix of both. But there are people that earn more than what the labor they put in is worth.

File: ugh.png (371KB, 426x449px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 426x449px

>>2526632
>the rolling stones
>not the literal epitome of cultural appropriation and toxic masculinity

ugh

File: 1489638457902.jpg (40KB, 532x343px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 532x343px

>>2526629

Thank you for being reasonable. I'm reading what you're saying and appreciating it.

However I would go all no true scotsman all over your ass and say that you're not talking about communism.

>Inequality is actually okay in communism.

How many self described communists would disagree with this? Non rhetorial or sarcastic question. Do many people believe these things?

>>2526592
>using capital on its own is ambiguous
sure if you've never read capital

>>2526647
Time is on my side, yes it is.
Time is on my side, yes it is.
Now you all were saying that you want to be free
But you'll come runnin' back (I said you would baby),
You'll come runnin' back (like I told you so many times before),
You'll come runnin' back to me.

>>2526629
>self-actualization
>commies
I've yet to meet a commie who isn't a complete degenerate hedonist.
Also
>inequality
>ok in communism
lmao, the vast majority of commies unirocally believe in blank slatism

>>2526641
>It was 150 years ago. Definitions change.

And Machiavelli came up with a class system analysis of history that is far more rigorous and has greater predictive value even further back. And while we can define anything we want, what I'm really driving at is that Marx's societal divisions aren't useful analytical tools, and they weren't even in the mid 19th century, let alone now.

>Bourgeoisie as meant by Marx means a capitalist who makes money by controlling capital, rather than earning money through labor. People can be a mix of both. But there are people that earn more than what the labor they put in is worth.

First off, to that last sentence, you need to have a theoretical framework to justify what a given unit of labor is 'really worth' and why that should be different from the sort of earning that is actually accompanying it is, and defend that framework as opposed to other frameworks as to why given amounts of labor (or anything else) have the values that they do.

And yes, I'm well aware of what Marx meant by his definitions, but those definitions are stupid, they have no predictive value. The whole reason you divide up society into classes like Proletariat and Bourgeoisie is so that you can make likely assumptions about the members of that class, and identify interests common to that class. Even leaving out the fact that yes, those class lines are blurry, you can't take a group of people as large as "Everyone who labors in return for a wage from an employer" and draw a neat little set of economic and social interests around them. Take the economic situation going on in the U.S. right now; we have increasing specialization of labor and a hugely greater ability to move goods or even parts of goods across the globe cheaply, meaning that transaction costs are down and manufacturing is more globally integrated than ever before.
1/2

>>2526655
Not him but.
>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" does not presuppose equality.

File: 8caead74aa925a29665c8ea260dde99f261d65b54bda94721b296bf3f699d285.png (337KB, 1144x888px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1144x888px

>>2526533
I wonder what site beginning with R you are from

>>2526641
>>2526677
From the perspective of a laborer who works in a field that the U.S. has a competitive advantage vis a vis the rest of the world, say, someone who can design and build aircraft engines, this is great. He's not feeling much, if anything from the increase in competition, because most of the competition was something he had already been dealing with right at home; and he can consume enormously more, because costs of goods in general go down. For someone who is a semi-skilled laborer, or an agricultural laborer, they're feeling a big pinch, because there are zillions of people who can do more or less the same job more cheaply, and he needs to lower his own standard of living to compete with them. But of course, to assert that two different sub-sections of the proletariat would have diametrically opposed purely economic interests is anathema, or is it to suggest that one of the two might actually have his own personal interests align with (some) of that of the Bourgeoisie, who of course are not a unified group either.

For his definitions to have any value whatsoever, they need to be able to predict social and economic interests for classes as a whole, and to do that, you need to enormously divide these classes into smaller components to have any hope whatsoever of doing that.

That's why, in some sense, Machiavelli beat Marx out with incredible simplicity. What is a class? You don't start with a defining characteristic of an enormous group of people and lump them all together, you do it tautologically. A class is a group of people who have the same economic and social interests. If they stop having the same interests, they are no longer the same class, if they ever really were to begin with.

>>2526682
>it's a /pol/tard newfags think stormfaggotry is the culture of 4chin episode

>>2526678
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" doesn't mean anything concrete. Also, please present me a famous commie who didn't believe we're all fundamentally the same and any difference is just environmental.

File: trumpepe.png (14KB, 242x208px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 242x208px

>>2526690
GamerGate birthed us.
r/theDonald refined us.
We are 4chan.
We put Pepe in the White House.
We'll put you out of a helicopter.
Cucks watch out.

>>2526655
>However I would go all no true scotsman all over your ass and say that you're not talking about communism.
It's Bolshevists that aren't real communists.

>How many self described communists would disagree with this?
Most self described communists haven't even read Marx and are more accurately described by Feuerbach's utopian socialism, which Marx criticizes.

>Non rhetorial or sarcastic question. Do many people believe these things?
A lot of people think Leninism-Marxism is the same as Marxism instead of a bad fanfiction. Every time Leninism-Marxism has been tried it has failed.

I could use a special snowflake term, like Orwell (Animal Farm, 1984 etc.) did like "democratic socialism" because communism has been appropriated by hippies and tankies, but then you would assume what they believe is actually Marxism.

The USSR was built on Leninism-Marxism/Stalinism, which signifigantly diverged from orthodox Marxism. Communist contemporaries, such as Rosa Luxemberg had issues with the USSR since the beginning. The USSR wanted to portray the USSR as real communism for propaganda purposes to justify their totalitarian state and sphere of influence. They couldn't go around saying we're actually basically just fascists.

The USA wanted to portray the USSR as real communism, because the USA was a well developed capitalist state, and socialism was a real concern. It became unpatriotic and treasonous to be socialist. It was also easy to point out failures with the command economy, which is not at all required by Marxism, but a central point of critique by American economists of why communism can't work. So the USSR pretending to be real communism was helpful to US propaganda as well.

This marginalized serious academic thought of Marxism. Many Marxist academics picked the side of the USSR because with the limited information coming out of the USSR, they felt like the USSR was the lesser of two evils, and closer to real communism than capitalism.

>>2526690
nice try r/communism, you must go back

>>2526706
cont.

Marx actually placed great importance on real world change rather than just theoretical change.

You also had the hippies who corrupted the meaning of communism because they also just felt the USSR was better than the USA.

So there's a lot of misunderstanding of what communism is. Although we call it Marxism, it's been shaped by USSR propaganda, USA propaganda, and also popular conception.

File: images (1).png (2KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 120x120px

>>2526690

Lets dispell this fiction once and for all that the shill doesn't know what hes doing. The shill knows exactly what hes doing. This is part of a concentrated effort to replace arguments with personal attacks.

Im so sorry i posted one little nazi picture with my most facetious post in the thread and gave you ammunition to derail this decent discussion. You can stop now.

>>2526700
Distributing goods "according to needs" necessarily implies inequality of outcome (which is what you were discussing), unless you are assuming yourself that everyone is equal in terms of needs.

Communism has to be implemented as a global system. Instituting it in one country is essentially just the state seizing all private property from within, while still participating in the capitalist market from without.

Hence "state capitalism"

>>2526729
>Distributing goods "according to needs" necessarily implies inequality of outcome
Nope, le't say I have 5 kids and you have 1.
Or that I lose a leg and you don't.
Different needs, but we were still born identical.

Btw, I'm not just memeing, I really want to know one commie who admits that there are significant innate non-environmental differences between individuals. Because if as I suspect, there really are none, I can add behavioral genetics to the list of scientific fields commies completely ignore.

>>2526721
Ah yes, how could I not respond with arguments to "I wonder what site beginning with R you are from".
Also, what's with /pol/tards posting pictures in every single post they make? Are you an attentionwhore or is it the result of being introduced to 4chin in a fast board where you need to stand out?

>>2526744
Are you retarded? I'm not even the original guy you were discussing with, but the discussion was about inequality in terms of goods, not in terms of whatever you are sperging about. Re-read >>2526629.

>>2526675
>I've yet to meet a commie who isn't a complete degenerate hedonist.
Well obviously. If they were content with your conservative standards, they would probably be content with whatever political system they were in. Communism is a revolutionary ideology for people who want something else in one way or another. If you're doing well, of course you have no need for communism.

>lmao, the vast majority of commies unirocally believe in blank slatism
Equality of personhood isn't the same as other inequality. It's even enshrined in the 'murrican not-commie constitution, all men are created equal. Blank slatism isn't a communist idea.

>>2526677
Marx doesn't need to repeat everything said before him.

You can determine what labor is really worth through market pricing, not a theoretical framework. It's quite obvious there are rich people who do almost no work, they use their money to hire other people to make investment choices for them.

Are you going to claim free markets are radically Marxist? If you could hire someone to do the same work you do on the free market, and still turn a profit because of ownership, that's the amount of profit due to capital. If most of your income is capital gains, you can't even pretend you worked for that.

>>2526765
>Blank slatism isn't a communist idea
But then why does every commie support it?
>>2526755
I'm piggybacking on that issue.

File: 14586755672331.jpg (149KB, 800x820px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 800x820px

>>2526745

>>2526773
Because since locke most people in general support it. We're offshoots of the enlightenment too, bruv.

>>2526745

This post was brought to you by r/leftypol!

File: 1487372834559.gif (864KB, 347x214px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 347x214px

>>2526706

Again, thank you for being reasonable.

It seems to me that the radical left and the radical right (or whatever) are both saying the same core message:

You have a duty to care for those around you.

I believe this, I agree with this. I would recommend that liberals/commies whatever and altright/nazis whatever the fuck - abandon these rusty old shackles of terms and groups and lets achieve our mutual goal.

But hey, we cant have people working together! Quick, queue the shills and propaganda!

>>2526773
>But then why does every commie support it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

>>2526778
>most people in general support it
What? Most people I know intuitively know there are innate differences between individuals that make them better or worse at different things.
>>2526783
I'm not saying "it's a commie idea" as in it's communist in origin, but it's commie as in "every commie thinks it's true".

>>2526687
>From the perspective of a laborer who works in a field that the U.S. has a competitive advantage vis a vis the rest of the world, say, someone who can design and build aircraft engines, this is great. He's not feeling much, if anything from the increase in competition, because most of the competition was something he had already been dealing with right at home; and he can consume enormously more, because costs of goods in general go down.
This is so tangential I don't even know how to respond. IAM is one of the most influential unions.

File: reddit invasion.jpg (683KB, 2008x1338px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 2008x1338px

>>2526745
you are trying very hard, i commend you for it. could you give me your account please? ill make an account for you and give you your well deserved gold

>>2526765
>Marx doesn't need to repeat everything said before him.

No, he just apparently needs to shit on it and make a tool that is less useful than one that existed well before him. Which begs the question of why bother? Why bother making it in the first place, and why bother using a framework that insists upon such a shitty tool?

>You can determine what labor is really worth through market pricing, not a theoretical framework.

Market pricing is something that Marx never addresses and explicitly rejects in favor of LTV.

>It's quite obvious there are rich people who do almost no work, they use their money to hire other people to make investment choices for them.

Which is not a form of labor and therefore irrelevant. What I believe you're trying to say is that it is incompatible with Marxism to have non-labor derived sources of income, not that some forms of labor earn more than they're "worth".

>Are you going to claim free markets are radically Marxist?

No, not at all. In fact, I'd claim no form of market economy is actually marxist, since nowhere in Marxism is any sort of realization of the principle of marginalism, which makes markets work. And as a total aside, he seems to completely neglect even theoretically dealing with the concept that the wage-provider might be and in fact often is doing something to enlarge the laborer's ability to produce, meaning that it's very possible he's absolutely better off under the laborer even if a portion of what he produces (which is difficult to determine anyway when you have production decentralized among groups as is often the case in a modern economy) is siphoned away to someone who is non-productive because this capitalist can provide things like tools and training he would not otherwise have access to.

>>2526776
>>2526779
Why don't you decide where you are going to accuse me to be from before shilling?

>>2526801
t.reddit

File: stormfags.png (62KB, 829x932px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 829x932px

>>2526795
Nice try stormfag, I've been here since before you started invading 4chan in 2010.

>>2526792
>This is so tangential I don't even know how to respond.

How is it tangential? I've pointed out an example as to a direct economic and social policy in which one segment of the proletariat has personal interests that pull them one way, and a different segment of the proletariat has their own personal interests that pull them the other way. The class, as a whole, cannot be said to be unified in self-interest on a policy like immigration.

>IAM is one of the most influential unions.

What's that got to do with anything? A union is nothing more than the cartelization of labor. They form unions to advance their own positions vis a vis management or other locally competing firms, not to advance their positions relative to other laborers in completely different fields of the economy.

>>2526791
enough people believed in the whole created equal thing to throw it on the US constitution, bruv. Of all things of the constitution that are thrown into question, that ain't one of em.

>>2526745

Youre not contributing, and further your post makes no sense. Behold the shill in his natural enviroment. He'll say anything to derail the conversation. I'm doing exactly what he wants, but these "people" need to learn.

>what site with R

Youre fighting with like 6 posters, thats not all one person buddy.

>images on an imageboard

Wow its fucking nothing

>4chin

Yea we always say that here, youre fitting in

>/his
>fast board

Nice, nice.

I have an idea, why don't you give me three good reasons to become a communist, or three good reasons to fight communism in all its forms, or just admit youre a dirtbag shill and fucking leave.

>>2526805

t. reddit

>>2526796
>since nowhere in Marxism is any sort of realization of the principle of marginalism, which makes markets work
Even before the realization of the concept?

>>2526781
>You have a duty to care for those around you.
Not necessarily. You could be an individualist egoist and not care a bit for anyone else and still pursue socialism or whatever. What's good for individuals is good for the many. It just means you're one of the little people rather than one of the elite, and you think it's more viable to work together with others to improve all your working conditions than become an elite yourself.

>>2526809
that part of the constitution is in regards to treatment from the state and that every man is given the same rights, not that everyone has the same capacities

File: uPGXmNu.jpg (567KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 1000x750px

>>2526533
>>2526690
>>2526745
>>2526801
>>2526805

(Youddit)

Why is Reddit brigading so hard?

>>2526812
>Youre fighting with like 6 posters, thats not all one person buddy.
So?

>Wow its fucking nothing
I'm genuinely curious. Can you answer?

>Nice, nice.
Are you too retarded to realize I was referring to /pol/ after calling you a /pol/tard in the same sentence?

>>2526821
I wasn't aware that men are created by legal agreement.

>>2526703
bullshit. People in their 60's in rural counties of swing states put Donald Trump in the white house.

You are just coattail riders taking credit for shit you have no business taking credit for.

>>2526816
I'm not personally blaming Marx for being unable to anticipate economic theory advancing beyond what was extant at his time. But that is, however, a big blow against its overall utility and its accuracy at predicting macrohistory based on economic analysis.

File: IMG_1025.jpg (74KB, 720x477px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 720x477px

I can't get no satisfaction, I can't get no satisfaction
'Cause I try and I try and I try and I try
I can't get no, I can't get no

When I'm drivin' in my car, and the man come on the radio
He's tellin' me more and more about some useless information
Supposed to fire my imagination

I can't get no, oh, no, no, no, hey, hey, hey
That's what I say
I can't get no satisfaction, I can't get no satisfaction
'Cause I try and I try and I try and I try
I can't get no, I can't get no

When I'm watchin' my tv and a man comes on and tell me
How white my shirts can be
But, he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke
The same cigarettes as me

I can't get no, oh, no, no, no, hey, hey, hey
That's what I say
I can't get no satisfaction, I can't get girl reaction
'Cause I try and I try and I try and I try
I can't get no, I can't get no

When I'm ridin' round the world
And I'm doin' this and I'm signin' that
And I'm tryin' to make some girl, who tells me
Baby, better come back maybe next week
Can't you see I'm on a losing streak
I can't get no, oh, no, no, no, hey, hey, hey
That's what I say, I can't get no, I can't get no
I can't get no satisfaction, no satisfaction
No satisfaction, no satisfaction

>>2526832
Not him, but you do realize there's a difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, right? And that while the DoI has enormous cultural value, it actually has 0 legal basis in the U.S., let alone anywhere else.

>>2526807
>The class, as a whole, cannot be said to be unified in self-interest on a policy like immigration.
No one said they were though unless you think "the left" boogeyman is a class.

>A union is nothing more than the cartelization of labor.
Which means they share the concerns of labor.

But basically, what you're concerned about is Marx thinks he sees the real underlying class, which is divided by competing interests, but attempts to raise class consciousness by turning them into a real class with shared interests. They don't even have to share every interest in common. Just enough to act with a clear agenda.

>>2526829
Why do /pol/tards need to make imaginary quotes with random unrelated embarrassing people in pics? Are they unable to win a discussion with actual people so they have to invent imaginary ones?
Also, it's just me, and I'm not from reddit, but that's more than enough.

>>2526805
Thank you for correcting the record! Gold has been dispatched to your account!

>>2526849
It's called strawmanning, they do it to draw attention away from the vapidity of their own arguments

>>2526849

t.t.reddit

>>2526849
>>2526859
(Youddit)

>>2526838
Sure, but if that's the case, why mention Marx specifically, instead of simply shittalking the whole of classical economic output?

>>2526420
It's against human psychology.

Whereas capitalism is in line with human psychology.

File: 1489205293833.png (654KB, 692x600px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 692x600px

>>2526831

>Can you answer

Yes, I'll gladly contribute to derailing the thread. Nice skills.

See, here on four chains, there are several site features. Ill point out two. The ability to post an image, and the ability to use a name.
Now generally you're going to want to post a picture. People come here to see pictures. It's called an imageboard. We used to have a lot of fun. Not so much anymore. Posting reaction images is basically the entire purpose of the website. Mfw, mfw.

Then to contrast, you have using a name or trip. This is optional, as is uploading an image. You should try it. Its really great, then we all know who you are!

>>2526849

Literally red dit the response.

>>2526846
day-drinking numbs the brain, pardon my mistake.
But in any case, as you say, it's got significant cultural value.

>>2526862
>>2526865
>>2526876
you just spamming the word reddit doesn't make your arguments sound any more convincing, cupcake

>>2526885
t. reddito

>>2526847
>No one said they were though unless you think "the left" boogeyman is a class.

But if they're not unified as a class, WHAT IS THE POINT OF MAKING ANALYSIS BY CLASS? If you admit that you can have diametrically different interests even within the proletariat, how can you possibly speak of a proletariat's interests vis a vis the bourgeoisie's interests, since neither are unified fields?

>Which means they share the concerns of labor.

No it doesn't. It means they share concerns of ultimate self-interests. If a bunch of sugar farms get together and all agree to artificially inflate prices, it doesn't mean they share any concerns of business, even within the greater realm of "business". It means they see an opportunity to act in a quasi-monopoly and all the extra wealth that they can get as quasi-monopoly holders.

>But basically, what you're concerned about is Marx thinks he sees the real underlying class, which is divided by competing interests, but attempts to raise class consciousness by turning them into a real class with shared interests

But he doesn't and never has. And never will, because Marxist analysis is fatally flawed as to what a class IS. And that's why "Pure Marxists" fail, until such point as the most visible "Marxists" have pretty much nothing to do with Marxist theory at all. The mere fact that you say you try to "raise class consciousness" indicates the failure. Class exists whether or not there is consciousness and doesn't need to be raised. It simply is a fact of social organization, no more in need of consciousness than printing off the gender balance demographic info of any particular city.

>They don't even have to share every interest in common. Just enough to act with a clear agenda.

You can get a group of people to act with a clear agenda with no class interests in common. Which is part of the reason that every Marxist group has been intellectually dominated by people that aren't proletariat under Marx's definitions.

>>2526420
Well part of it has to be that it's an ideology invented in the mid victorian period in Britain, so a highly industrial nation with a large urban working class.
Which then got applied to mostly agriculture Russia almost a century later.

Maybe it would have worked in victorian england who knows

>>2526885

Hey Reddit!

>>2526857
You're welcome, my stormfag invader/brainwashed by stormfags friend.

>>2526875
That doesn't really answer why /pol/tards seem to post images way more often than the average poster. I think the hypotheses I made were reasonable, I don't know why you seem to be butthurt. Another possible reason is that /pol/tards seem to rely on memes and or infopics way more than any other board to make "arguments".

>>2526796
>
No, he just apparently needs to shit on it and make a tool that is less useful than one that existed well before him. Which begs the question of why bother? Why bother making it in the first place, and why bother using a framework that insists upon such a shitty tool?
He had a thesis about dialectics and that is his supporting argument.

>Market pricing is something that Marx never addresses and explicitly rejects in favor of LTV.
LTV purports to reflect macroeconomic market systems. This comes from Smith and Ricardo, not Marx. Marx attempted to fix some major holes in Ricardo's LTV.

>Which is not a form of labor and therefore irrelevant. What I believe you're trying to say is that it is incompatible with Marxism to have non-labor derived sources of income, not that some forms of labor earn more than they're "worth".
You are misquoting me, probably deliberately. I said there are people that make income from both capital and labor. Their income is higher than what their labor would be worth on the free market. I did not say some forms of labor earn more than they're worth.

>No, not at all. In fact, I'd claim no form of market economy is actually marxist, since nowhere in Marxism is any sort of realization of the principle of marginalism, which makes markets work.
Market economy as a concept was invented before marginalism. Marginalism doesn't even demand a free market economy.

>because this capitalist can provide things like tools and training he would not otherwise have access to.
It's like you'd be a Marxist if you weren't a capitalist apologist and saw this as a good thing.

>>2526895

Halo Redditische

>>2526862
>>2526865
>>2526876
Still waiting for an actual answer.

>>2526903
t. redditii

>>2526866
Well, of course, all of classical economics is at least incomplete, if not outright wrong in huge respects. But Marxism is both the subject under discussion in this thread, and a political platform which is still insisting its outdated economics is 100% perfectly correct and the basis for further edifice construction, and then they sit around and wonder why none of their predictions come true.

>>2526887
>WHAT IS THE POINT OF MAKING ANALYSIS BY CLASS?
A nation is rarely a unified thing, but it is still convenient to refer to it as a singular object in certain contexts.
Cmon, can you seriously say that you've never generalized?

>>2526420
power corrupts. Rebellions lead to a new regime which lead to a rebellion.

The government will not in any way treat the common man as equals to the nobles; strife will cause a division and an impoverish persons trying to get to high society. Conflicts exists in any system unless you just live in a group above it.

>>2526903
Never go full reddit, commiereddit.

>>2526909
I know of no one who is saying capital is complete as is. I mean, Marx died in the middle of working on it. And in any case, there have been some pretty significant controversies on the topic of marxian economics, such as the okishio theorem.

File: IMG_1026.jpg (51KB, 340x388px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 340x388px

The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain,
Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed.
See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me. -
For me beats the time and gives the signs.
Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.[p.12]

File: 1487208055880.jpg (2MB, 2368x2368px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2368x2368px

>>2526895

Wheres my three reasons faggot? If im such a stormfaggot why dont you tell me why im wrong?

Self evident, worthless shill. You had a a chance and you blew it.

Three reasons nerd, or are you going to pick apart my post for minor things to squabble about and distract everyone?

You dont know anything about stormfront or old 4chan. Reply to this sentence instead of giving me 3 reasons, human waste.

Here OP look. This is why communism is bad. Why would this happen to your thread unless they had something to protect?

>haha jokes on me OP was the shill all along

>>2526589

Except a Lexus is a measurably better car than a Toyota. It's more comfortable, has nicer interior materials, has features that a Toyota doesn't, etc. it's not purely a wealth signaling Veblen good if it's actually better than the cheaper option.

>>2526909
Marxism isn't incompatible with marginalism though. Marxism can be, and has been reworded to incorporate marginalism. Yes, marginalism can invalidate some of the specific analysis Marx wrote using classical economics, but that doesn't mean marginalism disproves Marx. It just means the argument needs to be adapted to acknowledge marginalism. Marginalism isn't even incompatible with LTV. It just applies to non-competitive-market situations which LTV attempts to describe.

>>2526809
>enough people believed in the whole created equal thing to throw it on the US constitution, bruv
That's equal in terms of moral worth, not equal in terms of capacities.
Do you actually believe the founding fathers thought that every man had the same innate abilities? Including blacks?

>>2526896
>He had a thesis about dialectics and that is his supporting argument.

And since his supporting argument is full of holes, his thesis remains unsupported, which begs the question as to why someone would use it as the foundation of political action.

>LTV purports to reflect macroeconomic market systems. This comes from Smith and Ricardo, not Marx. Marx attempted to fix some major holes in Ricardo's LTV.

Nice history lesson, but how is that relevant? It remains a political system relying on its economic analysis to make macrohistorical predictions while using bad and outdated economic prediction tools.

>You are misquoting me, probably deliberately

> But there are people that earn more than what the labor they put in is worth.>>2526641

No, I am quoting you rather closely.

> Their income is higher than what their labor would be worth on the free market. I did not say some forms of labor earn more than they're worth.

That, however, is a statement I would agree with.

>Market economy as a concept was invented before marginalism

It is also almost impossible to utilize market economy as a predictive social science without marginalism, hence all the fluttering around trying (badly) to explain WHY things cost what they do.

>It's like you'd be a Marxist if you weren't a capitalist apologist and saw this as a good thing.

How is the expansion of productive capacity not a good thing? Why is it so hard to envision mutually beneficial economic relationships, even if that benefit is not shared equally? If a hypothetical factory worker makes more money than he could have as an independent man working for himself, how exactly is he being exploited?

>>2526928
It matters not, insofar as they figured men were entitled to the same rights and obligations regardless of "innate abilities."

>>2526438
Did you even read it, at all? Marx is critically analyzing economics from the standpoint of specifically looking at labour as being the driving force. Marx lays out in specific terms the basis for his usage of words like "Bourgeois" and "Proleteriat" before he begins using them, by predicating their usage on the previously built up frameworks.

But I guess reading all three volumes and making sure you understood them was a little too much, huh?

File: IMG_0882.jpg (131KB, 736x592px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 736x592px

Time is on your side
No more need in runnin'
No more need to hide
No more need to cry

Life Is what ya find
Wanderin' on the other side
No more need to sigh
No more need to lie
Make it what ya can
No more need in wastin'
Love's around the bend
No more time to lend

Hope the best to be
Just to make you see
Love's around the bend
No more time to lend
Now it's up to you
It's all up in your head
What ya gonna do
Bring yourself true

>>2526929
>How is the expansion of productive capacity not a good thing?
Why would you want to enslave yourself to a Jew in order to have access to increased productive capacity and fill his coffers?

>If a hypothetical factory worker makes more money than he could have as an independent man working for himself, how exactly is he being exploited?
He's being exploited because the Jew has all the money and can manipulate the workers because he has control over those resources.

Are you a Jew?

>>2526920
First, I'm not a communist nor did I imply that I was. Second, you argue like a three year old in a schoolyard. Could you imagine for a moment an academic discussion in which one person tells the other "give me 3 reason X is good"? Seriously, it's absolutely hilarious that you are so infantile to think this is how a discussion works. Although I can larp as a communist and actually respond if you want, arguing with stormfags are fun.

>You dont know anything about stormfront or old 4chan.
I do know about old 4chan much better than you. I admit I don't know that much about stormfront, besides lurking it from time to time because there's hilarious shit like >>2526919. Although I assume you are admitting you do know about stormfront yourself, which makes you a stormnigger invader as I have been implying.

Also, you still didn't answer my question, don't leave me hanging.

>>2526420
when you take private property from people using force without their consent they get mad and kill you

>>2526959
is*

>>2526910
>A nation is rarely a unified thing, but it is still convenient to refer to it as a singular object in certain contexts.


Of course it is, but only when those predictions and generalizations can be checked against objective reality and proven to be good bases of organization. If I just start making up arbitrary political units, something like "all liberal democracies act in way X", and they turn out not to do so, the smart thing to do is to throw out the organizational principle instead of continually trying to hemm and haw your way out of it. There's a reason why even Fukuyama turns his nose up at The End of History these days.

Meanwhile, Marxist class analysis has a terrible, terrible track record. Remember how WW1 was supposed to grind dead in its tracks because the class bonds between workers, who made up the bulk of the armies, was supposed to be enormously stronger than nationalistic identity interests?

>>2526915
While I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert in all post-Marx developments to marxist theory, we have guys right here, in this thread, who are proving extraordinarily resistant to the simple concept that someone can deny some of the core principles that Marx is basing his work upon, like that whole "Maybe the division of society into Proletariat and Bourgeoisie was a dumb idea after all."

File: fat-nazi.jpg (23KB, 423x267px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 423x267px

>>2526703
>"Cucks watch out"

>>2526969
Marx was dead when WWI happened

>>2526959
t.reddit

File: commietip.png (118KB, 240x284px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 240x284px

gibsmedat

File: r socialism.png (292KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1920x1080px

>>2526795
>thinking reddit """socialists""" and /leftypol/ are working together somehow

>>2526925

>Marxism isn't incompatible with marginalism though. Marxism can be, and has been reworded to incorporate marginalism. Yes, marginalism can invalidate some of the specific analysis Marx wrote using classical economics, but that doesn't mean marginalism disproves Marx.

It disproves Marx insofar as his predictions for long term trends of how wealth is likely to distribute and the subsequent social consequences of said wealth distribution, and that is a pretty huge tenet of Marxist thought to just throw away.

>It just means the argument needs to be adapted to acknowledge marginalism.

Again, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I've personally never seen this. If you take away the idea that the workers are going to be progressively priced out of the necessities of life which does not seem to be happening in any developed economy, you have a pretty huge hole in things.

> Marginalism isn't even incompatible with LTV. It just applies to non-competitive-market situations which LTV attempts to describe.

I'm sorry, what? How can the claim that the Xth good or service has a different value than the X+1th good or service, despite identical production, be in any way compatible with the LTV?


>>2526951
Marx lays out in specific terms the basis for his usage of words like "Bourgeois" and "Proleteriat" before he begins using them, by predicating their usage on the previously built up frameworks.

And like I've said upthread, while these definitions are internally consistent, they're fucking useless. They do not in fact identify why class lines should be drawn where they are, or how you deal with the concept that since they're so broadly defined, you can find enormous diversity and flat out contradiction of interests within any given class. They cannot be in any sense be meaningfully used as tools for making predictions about how a society is likely to react to a given stimulus.

>>2526981
Marxist analysis as a tool and framework died with Marx? What are all these guys calling themselves Marxists doing anyway then?

>>2526987

Ave redditus

Raindrops, drop tops (drop top)
Smokin' on cookie in the hotbox (cookie)
Fuckin' on your bitch she a thot, thot, thot (Thot)
Cookin' up dope in the crockpot, (pot)
We came from nothin' to somethin' nigga (hey)
I don't trust nobody, grip the trigger (nobody)
Call up the gang, they come and get you (gang)
Cry me a river, give you a tissue (hey)
My bitch is bad and boujee (bad)
Cookin' up dope with a Uzi (blaow)
My niggas is savage, ruthless (savage)
We got 30's and 100 rounds too (grrah)
My bitch is bad and boujee (bad)
Cookin' up dope with a Uzi (dope)
My niggas is savage, ruthless (hey)
We got 30's and 100 rounds too (glah)

>>2526988
>I'm sorry, what? How can the claim that the Xth good or service has a different value than the X+1th good or service, despite identical production, be in any way compatible with the LTV?
Not him but you are mixing values and prices. In fact, Marx himself mentions supply and demand as a factor in price. On the other hand, if marginal costs are constant (which should be the case for reproducible commodities that marx analyzes), price is completely determined by production, even if the demand curve is derived from marginalist individuals.

>>2526988
>I'm sorry, what? How can the claim that the Xth good or service has a different value than the X+1th good or service, despite identical production, be in any way compatible with the LTV?
Because stable markets on commodity goods tend to equalibriate. If n+1th good is worth less than nth good, then it is likely additional labor and capital will not be allocated to that industry due to marginalism.

You are supposing that the supply side does not at all react to demand.

You are basically criticizing Marx's LTV for the flaws of Ricardian LTV.

File: 1487428346311.png (164KB, 590x474px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 590x474px

>>2526959

0 reasons why communism is good or bad. Personal attacks. Meta-arguments.

The challenge was make a contribution that consists of three small examples or admit you're a derailing shill. You have admitted youre a derailing shill.

I'm done, ive made my point about communism and about shills. Read through the whole thread and make your own evaluation.

Communism is bad because as soon as someone makes art it crumbles. I still appreciate the one good poster that gave me something to consider. He had a lot more than three responses, but we're both infantile, thats fine.

Shills are shills because they cannot even produce three original thoughts without resorting to ad hominem.

t. Christie v. Rubio

This shill cant even pass the turing test. Keyword, check, auto response, double check.

File: 1486834035495.jpg (36KB, 540x808px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 540x808px

>You dont know anything about stormfront or old 4chan. Reply to this sentence instead of giving me 3 reasons, human waste.

>I do know about old 4chan much better than you. I admit I don't know that much about stormfront, besides lurking it from time to time because there's hilarious shit

>>2527021
>The challenge was make a contribution that consists of three small examples or admit you're a derailing shill. You have admitted youre a derailing shill.
Oh shit, I didn't know I could make arbitrary rules like this in a discussion. Let me try it: give me 11 reasons Bolivia and Chile aren't at war or you are a shill. If you don't answer in the next 2 minutes, you are also a faggot and your mum will die in her sleep.

>Communism is bad because as soon as someone makes art it crumbles.
>>2526625

>I'm done
Bye bye stormie, better luck next time.

>>2527038

Reddit post^

File: 1483487397948.jpg (145KB, 1920x1541px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1920x1541px

can someone explain to me the difference between labor theory of value vs subjective theory of value

>>2527038
>>2527034

Sad, many such cases

>>2527044
>17:01:38
>17:03:48
Almost. Sorry about your mum.

File: 1489592524670.gif (2MB, 255x191px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 255x191px

>>2527038

>So the communist response is either HEHE POL POSTER OMG SWEETIE,

>Bye bye stormie, better luck next time.

>>2527073
>make non arguments
>complain about the response

File: 1489161052444.jpg (60KB, 1024x580px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1024x580px

>>2527089

Isn't one of the problems with implementing communism that it was never tried on a fully-developed capitalist country? I wonder what would a communist USA look like.

File: Supply-and-Demand-Graph.png (24KB, 517x517px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 517x517px

>>2527051
>subjective theory of value
This is just the demand curve. It says at any given price P, there exist a number of buyers who value it so much as to buy a quantity of the product Q. P is not a fixed value and there exists buyers who place the value of the commodity at different P's, or will buy differing volumes of the commodity at different P's.

>labor theory of value
This is adding the supply, labor, the supply and demand.

Subjective theory of value is just making a big deal about how the supply curve exists independently of supply and demand, and it's a curve with many points and P is not constant along the length of it. Therefore it still applies where supply and demand does not.

29. Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.

Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty."

30. Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one."

>>2526969
>Remember how WW1 was supposed to grind dead in its tracks because the class bonds between workers, who made up the bulk of the armies, was supposed to be enormously stronger than nationalistic identity interests?
And where was such written

>>2527051
>>2527112
Additionally if you would like an example, we can take a line from Shakespeare's Richard III, "My kingdom for a horse"

Subjective theory of value holds that for King Richard at this moment a horse is worth more to him than his kingdom. He needs a horse, not a kingdom. In ordinal terms, the horse is a greater priority, and one that can not be met at a low price.

Labor theory of value dictates that a kingdom has a greater worth than a horse, the amount of labor to raise a horse is nowhere near the amount of labor to build a kingdom.

Common sense says a kingdom is worth a lot more than a horse in some abstract gut feeling of value.

But supply and demand breaks down here, because King Richard is the only one here who has a kingdom to trade, and there's no supply of horses at this moment to trade to him. Had there been several stables nearby with dozens of horses to choose from, he of course, would not trade his kingdom for a horse.

So because there is a breakdown of supply and demand, labor theory of value is not applicable in this situation. However subjective theory of value still applies, even if we think to ourselves that a kingdom for a horse is not a fair trade in terms of labor theory of value.

>>2526596
In the way that the capital is not an end-be-all like it is in capitalism, whose ultimate end is to earn more money, thus allowing for structural oppression (not feminist triggered-tier though). Thus, humanity would have surpassed a stage. That's not a hard concepted to grasp. If it works is another discussion. I'm not a communist.

File: Soviet Food Line 1990.jpg (43KB, 500x336px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x336px

>>2526420
>why communism doesn't work?

Bust your ass in school, get good grades
Make it into college, bust your ass again, get good grades
Graduate and get luckily get a job in your field
Bust your ass working and kissing requisite ass
Wait years to get an apartment in a commieblock
Your life is no better than your next door neighbor, a drunken garbageman with a dozen kids...

Wow! What a great deal, thanks Communism!….

>>2526509
Hahaha

File: images.jpg (5KB, 163x197px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 163x197px

>>2526568
>easily debunk broken ideology with one simple example

>people are connected more by class than nationality

communists always say this, but it will never, never be true

>>2526420
Human nature

>>2529243

Well, it's not true for the poor, as they are always passive slaves with no serious role to play in directing society. But the rich unquestionably pursue wealth-accumulation as a religion, denying this is to deny basic human nature.

The "nation" is only the most modern construct by the rich to keep the poor passive. Only in times of conflict is it ever taken really seriously, as even a brief glimpse at history will tell you. Keep up the wishful thinking though, cuck.

>>2526420
Because people were not born to work, they were born to learn, and they do a shabby job of that