1)What did he mean when he said that the bourgeoisie doesn't work? What is "work" exactly?2) he said there are no eternal principles or truths and everything is in constant change. Isn't that a contradiction? Isnt the act of saying that there are no absolute truths an attempt of saying an absolute truth?3) if the means of production were to belong to everybody, how would that work, exactly? Say, I know how to make a certain part of a car, what would I do with that part? Would I sell it? Would I buy the other pieces, put the car together and sell it at a profit? Who would regulate how much time I could use the machines?
>>14232200your thread looks like a gross misrepresentation and oversimplification of a complex topic with a dishonest intent (bait). post the exact marx quotes you are referring to and we might be able to provide context
Reminder that Marx was a trust fund kiddy himself and never did an honest day's work in his life.
>>14232220And your response seems like someone getting defensive because a stranger on the internet questioned your beliefs.
>>14232200>if the means of production were to belong to everybody, how would that work, exactly?The state owns everything and a class of bureaucrats decide what gets produced and whom those goods get distributed to. In the absence of private property and markets that's the only way of allocating scarce goods besides fighting over them.
>>14232345defensive? there is no point in writing and citing sources if op doesn't care enough to do his homework
>>14232402But isnt the end goal of communism the abolition of the state?
>>14232200I read The Communist Manifesto and Marx unironically is a midwit. He speaks 2/3rds of the manifesto arguing with a bourgeoisie strawman, and ends it with some untenable planks that include depopulating cities and spreading fertilizer across the countryside so the masses can engage in some inefficient mass agricultural scheme. Also was real swell how he found time to go on a random cuckold fantasy about bourgeoisie men fucking each other’s wives out of nowhere.No wonder it’s a dead ideology, you’d have to be an uneducated 19th century peasant or factory worker to fall for this shit.
>>14233249nta but that's a complete non-sequituur to what the anon you replied to said.
>>14232220>muh quoteYeah and once its delivered you stop replying lmao every time.
>>14232200>1)What did he mean when he said that the bourgeoisie doesn't work? What is "work" exactly?I'm not a Marx expert but I think it's human labor + resources enabled by machines.>3) if the means of production were to belong to everybody, how would that work, exactly?This is a notoriously sore point in Marx since he wasn't really proscriptive or lay that out (that's up to us to figure out together, collectively), but the way I'd think about it, liberal (or libertarian) ideology tends to focus on individual economic relationships. Like you and I trade something and we both benefit. Yay, capitalism, right? That does make sense within its own scope. But if you think about speculation, I can give you something with no real intrinsic value (as Marx would see it) and you give me money for it, because you want to sell it to the next sucker for even more money, so the thing (Beanie Babies, crypto, tulips, etc.) are "worth whatever people are willing to pay for it."But that's not productive human activity which is social in character. Instead it's just "making money from money." And I think part of his own view is that capitalism already "socializes" labor and production anyways, capitalism is a system of mass production anyways, but the means of production are owned by relatively few private owners over a mass of propertyless (in the sense of "bourgeois" property) workers, but there are contradictions within a for-profit, privately-owned economy that would lead to a fall in profits throughout the *whole system* over time (the cost of technology upkeep adds costs, dragging down profits), which would lead the capitalists to invest more in speculation because they can wring more profit out of it, which would create all kinds of unsustainable economic distortions and then you got big problems.
>>14232220Communism is a market economy and ford ran the soviet car industry.
>>14232200>1)What did he mean when he said that the bourgeoisie doesn't work? What is "work" exactly?Like this thread and every user on this board, Marx was mentally retarded, and your question is meaningless. You're too dumb to find a eviction before 2015. Private property didn't exist before 1950.>2) he said there are no eternal principles or truths and everything is in constant change. Isn't that a contradiction? Isnt the act of saying that there are no absolute truths an attempt of saying an absolute truth?Yes. His is a retard board and will disagree.>3) if the means of production were to belong to everybody, how would that work, exactly? Say, I know how to make a certain part of a car, what would I do with that part? Would I sell it? Would I buy the other pieces, put the car together and sell it at a profit? Who would regulate how much time I could use the machines?Capitalism is literally retards and will collapse.
>>14235444Didn't Lenin say that capitalist would sell the rope in which they would hang them? Lenin was not a fanatical dogmatist, he made several compromises to achieve his goals.
>>14232345>>14234330>>14235444oh no the little boy is angry now :(
>>14232200Not a communist but what he meant was not actually produce things of value. For example, if you get rich by moving stocks around, this isn't producing anything objectively of value.
>>14232200I think he meant that the bourgeoisie doesnt experience the same type of commodification in their own skin as compared to the proletariat - which basically means that the proletariat, selling their labor for wages, are commodified and in their subconscious occupy both the object of history( created by capitalist society) and the subject (those who shape and construct the world). The bourgeoisie do not commodify themselves - sell their labor for wages (work I guess ) the same way the proletariat does, or at least to the extent that they are both the object and subject of history.Marx says capitalism is full of contradictions but I cannot remember an exact passage or chapter which is specific to this questionDespite his extensive critique, Marx doesnt really go any further into detail about what that would look like actually but I dont wanna do them a dis service and fuck up an interpretation . Maybe some other anon can chime in
>>14232200your shitpost is work, you just dont get paid to do it..