The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law (2)

Something I wrote as part of a conversation with Parodites, this is very applicable to this thread and our current situation in the world today:


Surplus capital is just wealth, a pile of money. That can be created in many ways, mostly by profit. Profit isn't created just by exploiting geographic disparities, but by the mutual exchanges of value between people and organizations, and between areas too such as north and south in the general sense. Each person, organization, area, has something others do not, or has productive capacity others do not, or has desires others do not, and therefore these little differences will always produce potential profitability that can be discovered and harnessed by a free market system.

It is all based on how hard someone works, and by extension how profitable a business or enterprise can be. The more someone works, the more they produce; the more they produce, the more the are able to trade that with others maximizing that value-differential between them in order to produce profit which, at a certain point, becomes wealth. Wealth is then "surplus capital", just a surplus of... capital, that is all it is. It is not some mystical sort of thing Marx talked about. The only "surplus" as in a true excess about it, is in the fact that it has to be produced by an excessive productive process, by concerted effort within such a process.

Value is produces in one of three ways, which I wrote about here last year or something: 1, taking existing resources and applying work-effort upon them to change them into something of human value (wood into a chair, for example, or into a house); 2, extracting more resources out of the earth and making them available to the processes above in (1); and 3, refining the efficiency of existing productive processes of (1) and/or (2).

Those are literally the only ways anything is ever created, and this is simply what the economy means, combined with the fact that people trade around their resources and products and labor. Work-effort is a commodity too, like any other product, because it is something that is literally produced, by a worker, and has a relative value attached to it, a value that cannot be objectively determined but must be allowed to be indirectly determined by the free market of everyone freely exchanging with everyone else based on their own individual value-determinations and how willing they are to do, sell, or buy something based on their own inclinations and situations.

So profit can be and is produced without any kind of superstate system, there is no need whatsoever for the State to come in and create monopolies that acquire trillion of dollars to themselves; that is false wealth, because that wealth was stolen, not created. The state is theft via taxation, and the state is also theft via legalizing or tacitly allowing monopolies by putting the State's force of backing (literally force, since that is what government is, the legal use of force) behind such entities which would otherwise not be allowed to continue to exist in a free market system, since the fundamental and philosophical basis of such a system is competition. An individual person can become immensely wealthy, but an individual corporation or business can do that and be broken up into smaller entities set in competition with one another, just as two or more individuals cannot merge together to form a super-individual set against other individuals, so it makes no sense to allow businesses to grow so massive that they become super-entities against which nothing else can reasonably compete. That is the idea behind anti-trust, which helps to ensure the continuation of the free market system against uses of force.

The inevitability I see is that eventually you will have some people and some businesses that become super-rich. What do you do about this? In the case of individuals, nothing at all; in the case of businesses, you break them up into smaller entities, separate their internal capital-productive structure like pulling it apart, redistributing it back into the larger system as a whole. This does not destroy surplus capital, because the surplus still exists, now in the form of several rather than just a single entity, and also because in my view capital must always be owned by an individual person and not by a corporation. A corporation or business does not really exist, not really, it is just a complex extension of objects subject to the direction of human beings. Such a complex extension of objects cannot ever "own" anything and has no personhood, no subjectivity, no ontic integrity, and so should not be seen as something which can "own capital". Individuals are the ones who actually own things, even in our weird system where corporations are allowed to own capital directly, in the end the corporation is still owned by individuals, i.e. shareholders or actual owners on paper.

So anyway, I see no reason why profits cannot and would not be produced without State interventions and globalist debt systems. What the State and these globalist debt systems actually do is siphon off trillions of dollars from the markets, from the 1-3 productive processes I mentioned above, and from individual people via taxation and via selling the people cheap products that the people become habituated to purchase against their own interest due to the effects of propaganda (advertising), so that all this siphoned off wealth, literally hundreds of trillions of dollars, get pushed upward above the market system, above the level of the people, and sits up there at the top able to be disposed of by a relatively small group of super-elites, so called, who are only "elite" because they have succeeded in stealing all of that wealth in the first place.

The international institutions, the fiat debt-based reserve banks, it is all a scam, it is not necessary and it serves no good purpose for humanity. It is the cause of most wars, most poverty, most failed states, most addiction, most corruption, most loss of freedom, most death of people, most growth of the big brother tyrannical world-government system that views humans as nothing more than means to ends, etc. etc. etc. etc. There is absolutely no reason why such a super-system needs to exist or should exist. It is not necessary for the productive processes to form and exist, to produce profit, to distribute profits amongst the people, to create wealth for the entire society and also to create super-rich individuals. All of that exists and would exist without any kind of tyrannical State. Unfortunately, most people are too stupid to see what is happening and what has happened in the formation of this tyrannical State, which is now an International State, and at this point there is very little anyone can do about it because it has already stolen those hundreds of trillions of dollars and taken over pretty much any entity and organization that would be important to exposing this rigged system.

I don't want to steal human wealth, give it to a few insane unelected super-elites, let them push technocratic tyranny over the earth and form a singularity into which everyone will be permanently absorbed losing his or her consciousness, identity, meaning, etc. to the loss of the human future. That is what we are talking about. There is the sort of system I describe with real capitalism, which guarantees a future, and then there is the superstate elitist system that does not guarantee a future.

regarding anti trust, it would give control to the law, administered by judges, not give control to “the State”. the determination if any one corporation becomes so large as to effectively stifle (use of force) the free competition options of a large section of the rest of the economy. that’s a simple legal issue, it has nothing to do with giving the State power. it has precisely to do with giving the people power, under the law, to administer that values test according to the legal system which is subject to the people. because if it were the other way around as you are suggesting, then literally every administration of law would be handing over power to the State, and that isn’t the case. proper laws are based on rationality and principle and merely administered by the State which is the only legitimate function of the State, to administer by force these basic laws of rationality and principle and at behest of the people.

one mega corporation owning everything is stupid, anyone can recognize that. it’s like the free market, you can’t objectivity quantify the value of a product, value is emergent and subjective. so you write laws with this in mind and establish your principles and reasoning and then let that work itself out in individual court cases. it’s not that difficult really.

as for surplus value, rent is not anything special. to rent one’s property to another is to give something of value to someone else who doesn’t own it, for their and your own benefit. renting a farm means you give someone something they don’t have, access to farm land and equipment, so they can maximize their own work-effort in better ways than they could otherwise, and the profits (value gains) are shared to both parties. debt is quite different, debt is borrowing future value into the present moment, which can be good in small scales when the borrowed value will, in the present, produce more net value than the loss of future value plus cost of interest on that debt, so everybody wins; but debt in the large scale is used to compensate for the fiat debt banking system which steals literally trillions of dollars out of the people and their economies, so that this theft must be compensated for somehow so no one notices. that is where massive government debt comes in, because such debts are not used as i describe above to borrow from the future a little into the present to produce more net gain, but simply to offset the theft that has already occurred, to cover up the fact of that theft so no one noticed it.

Continuing on this subject, regarding wages and capital ownership vs. workers,


...in a free market system labor is a transaction that both parties need to agree to, and can be terminated by either party at any time. Therefore it is going to benefit both parties, if both have to agree to it. One does not just agree to be a slave, each person has the responsibility to try and find the best possible employment situation he/she can get, and again it has to be mutual on both ends. No one has a right to force an employer or the government to give them a good job or give them money to live off of, we each have that responsibility ourselves. That is how it works. So when the farm worker is working the farmer's land, and the farm worker is getting paid, that payment is not "slavery" but the exact opposite of slavery; the wages to the worker are compensation agreed upon by the owner and the worker, because the worker cannot earn more money to himself without borrowing the capital of the owner and working on it (otherwise he would just go do that other thing which earned him more money, whatever it is, and it would be another kind of job.. or crime, those are really the only two option. there is charity too, I guess), AND the owner cannot generate more value from his capital than by employing the worker, because if the owner could do that then he would simply do it (i.e. use other workers, or sell his capital off, liquidate it).

That is why I do not agree with this whole marxist notion that profit is exploitation. Profit is generated not by the fact that a capitalist arbitrarily prices his product higher than it cost to produce it, that is not the mechanism by which prices are set. Prices are set based on what another person is willing to pay, that is the main factor, and this willingness to pay a certain price or not is itself determined by a lot of other complex processes such as supply and demand, perceived value, actual value, availability of discretionary income at the time, etc. To me, saying with marx that any pricing of a product over and above what it cost to produce it is somehow theft or exploitation, is insane, because that isn't at all how pricing operates and if we just assume everyone should or could set the price at exactly what it took to make the product then nothing would ever get made. The "profit" (extra value created by the fact that another person is willing to trade with you more value for something, in your own eyes, than value it took you to produce that something) is merely a symbol, like money itself; profit is a symbol that value is being created, money is a symbol of that value which was created.

The worker also is an owner, namely of his own labor-power, his intellect-power, his general work effort capacity. He may not own any land or capital, but if he works and applies himself then he can acquire some. That is the whole point of the economy, of a free market system, it allows people to better themselves. No one "just has" capital or wealth or property, it doesn't magically appear out of nowhere, it had to be generated at some point in the past. So the difference between the worker's situation and the owner's situation is not some kind of sign of unfairness or inevitability in the system. The only inevitability is if a person decides not to apply themselves to utilize their own individual work-effort and desires in a free market economy to end up bettering themselves. If they choose not to do that, for whatever reason, then that is on them.

Of course if they don't have access to a free market economic system that is different, but that still has nothing to do with marx, in fact it is because of marx that free market economic systems are not more common around the world.

The "cost" is not the value of your skill and physical exertion, that is not what cost represents. The "cost" represents the perceives value of what you made to other people. The value of the product you made is set not by you, but by the person to whom you are attempting to transact it. That is the interesting thing about value, each product has a different value for each person. To you, yes the value is basically what it cost you to produce it in combination with what you can sell it for; to the person who buys it, the value is whatever value-gain the product will give that person's life, minus the cost to purchase it from you.

The capitalist owner does not "pay you less than that excess" or less than the cost of components, that is not what wages are. Wages are a redistribution of the profits generated by mutual work on the part of the worker and the owner. The owner has responsibility for maintaining his capital and land and productive processes, not the worker; it is the owner who pays for all the bills, the legal, the insurance, the infrastructure, HR, taxes, all of that, and then has to also upkeep his own property at the same time. Most owners of businesses work 15 hours a day, they are not just lazy fat cats who sit around doing nothing, because it actually takes a lot of time and effort to upkeep something as large and complex as a business or arable land. But back to wages, the wage is simply a redistribution of value produced such that this redistribution is the minimum required to get you to continue producing on the owner's capital, namely you are satisfied enough with the wages to continue choosing to work there, and the owner is satisfied enough with the value you produce based on your work, minus the wages he is paying you. It is a win-win situation. At least in a free market economy where you could have access to many other potential jobs and potential kinds of jobs, and where you can learn new skills and knowledge and educate yourself and all that.

[As for the employer continuously generating/stealing surplus-value out of the worker ad infinitum and never allowing the worker to rise above that situation], no, because you can save your money and acquire your own capital to yourself, you can quit your job for a better job. People do that all the time. The entire middle class is based on the reality that you can work hard and save up and elevate yourself and your family into better conditions, you can acquire capital over time and end up becoming a capital owner if you want to.. you can start a business and hire people. Again, people do that all the time.

I am posting these here because I think this is all very important to the study of globalism. Globalism is basically the denial of everything I am saying here, and not only the denial but the deliberate hatred of and attempt to destroy everything I am saying here. Globalism is the system that wants every person without freedom, totally enslaved, without possibility of improving his or her life except by sucking off the globalists (in some cases, quite literally). Globalism is a tyranny the scope of which humanity has never been faced with before, and China is just a template, a test case model of what tyranny can do in a closed society with access to advanced tech. Just wait, that is what the western world is also being geared up for.

Anyway. Continuing the dialogue of previous posts,



Value isn't arbitrary subjective impression, I don't think that either. It is relative and tied to the individual person who values. It is the individual person capable of valuing, who makes an ascertain of relative value in the moment, namely "is this product worth the cost I have to pay?" That is a somewhat unconscious process with conscious aspects to it. Value is relative to the valuer, I do not believe in any kind of absolute value of value, in any objective value so called. Value literally means to that entity capable of valuing, and if we try to give objective value of something then we are basically undercutting that process whereby the entity capable of valuing determines the value of something to itself, which is how it works because as I said, everything has a different value to different people.

Commodity fetishism is a stupid concept, in my view, because while yes people can indeed fetishize consumption and become addicted to materialistic hedonistic consumerism, the idea of commodity fetishism goes much deeper than this and is basically saying that any valuing of products is "fetishizing" them unless you simply transact at the most minimal level possible namely the cost to produce something. So basically we should all be bartering for minimal value, with no one ever generating any profit, and all values ought to be "objectively" assigned so that individual valuers are not able to assign their own relative value to things. To me, that is idiotic. I despise marx with a passion, I really do see that marx has ruined humanity.

It isn't arbitrary subjective impression, I don't think that either. It is relative and tied to the individual person who values. It is the individual person capable of valuing, who makes an ascertain of relative value in the moment, namely "is this product worth the cost I have to pay?" That is a somewhat unconscious process with conscious aspects to it. Value is relative to the valuer, I do not believe in any kind of absolute value of value, in any objective value so called. Value literally means to that entity capable of valuing, and if we try to give objective value of something then we are basically undercutting that process whereby the entity capable of valuing determines the value of something to itself, which is how it works because as I said, everything has a different value to different people.

Commodity fetishism is a stupid concept, in my view, because while yes people can indeed fetishize consumption and become addicted to materialistic hedonistic consumerism, the idea of commodity fetishism goes much deeper than this and is basically saying that any valuing of products is "fetishizing" them unless you simply transact at the most minimal level possible namely the cost to produce something. So basically we should all be bartering for minimal value, with no one ever generating any profit, and all values ought to be "objectively" assigned so that individual valuers are not able to assign their own relative value to things. To me, that is idiotic. I despise marx with a passion, I really do see that marx has ruined humanity.

Also regarding commodity fetishism, it is just a fact of how subjectivity and psyche work that we end up supplementing and expanding our subjective identity based on the things we own, the things we surround ourselves with. This is because these are aspects of ourselves because we choose to acquire them, so these objects, "commodities", symbolize something about ourselves to ourselves, like looking into a mirror. Also, products we purchase can add more value to our lives, they can give us more time, or expand our scope of power and influence, or give us new experiences and new possibilities, or stave off anxiety or suffering or want, etc. This whole idea of a blanket concept for fetishizing commodities totally ignores all of this. I really hate the leftist critiques of economics, despite that they aren't real critiques at all but just a bunch of idiotic non-philosophical whining about nothing at all except their own feelings, which aren't even feelings but basically butt-hurt and preprogrammed responses of a very low order, this whole manner of thinking is essentially a death cult, in my view. There is so much philosophically interesting depth to things like work, the economy, commodities, and it all entwines together with psychology and philosophy, we barely even take an honest look at it, and yet marx and his suck off buddies just dismiss it all with a few fancy words. What a fucking joke.

I am 10000000 times smarter than fucking marx or any of his suck off fuckoff buddies. Fuck them all. I should be the one writing the world-renowned texts on economics and philosophy and psychology, and how these all entwine, not these fucking worthless "critical theorists". Fuck them and their idiotic systems of death.

Technology allowed workers and owners (owners are workers too, incidentally, they just perform different job functions than traditional "workers" (wage-earners)) to become more efficient, yes, and this increase in efficiency translated directly into addition of value, because now the same productive process could produce greater scope of the same products, and more sophisticated products, all of which represents an increase in value because other people, valuers, will appraise them accordingly. People want more products, and better products, and they want them cheaper. That is just a fact. So since I define value as whatever a valuer assigns as value to something, this all means that technological development quite literally unlocked totally new avenues of value into the world. More value is quite literally created.

And that new value is not evenly distributed between wage earner and capital owner, because the onus for distributing it falls primarily on the owner, since it is the owner who can dispense with his property and capital, and pay wages, according to his own free choice. Therefore he will keep more of that new added value from technological development/industrialization to himself, rather than just give it away for free to workers who are already freely choosing to work at his property. Giving them additional wages over and above what they are already willing to work for would need to be based on something other than producing more value due to increasing productive efficiency, it would be based on the direct value of the workers to the entire productive process. See, this is where marx gets it all totally wrong, he thinks in "objective value" that for example the price of a product should be just an expression of what it cost someone to make it, or that if a capital owner refines his capital productive process via industrialization this automatically means he should pay his workers a higher wage, because the capital machinery he owns is now generating more value -- no, it does not fucking work like that. Marx is an insane idiot, he could not see even the most basic facts of how these things work. It is not 'objective' like that, and in the case of wages paid, wages will increase only based on if the worker himself has more value to add to the process, and/or if the owner wants to attract better labor and compete with other businesses for quality labor, and/or the owner is trying to incentivize workers to stay on at his business long-term because that way they become better workers and he cuts down on the cost of hiring new people.

Just because a capital owner introduces new industrial machines and lets his workers use these, thereby the workers are producing value more efficiently than before, does not somehow magically mean the workers should be paid more wages. There is no inherent connection there. The industrial machines are part of the owner's capital, as is everything else he already had pre-industrialization. It's like saying that wages should go up every time the capital owner adds more value to his own capital, and regardless of what the worker is actually doing. It makes no sense. But wages do rise, for the reasons I mentioned above; and in terms of the added value from the increase in efficiency of industrialization, this added value is not just simply hoarded by the capitalist himself but is distributed out into the entire economy, which we clearly see in the rising wealth and standard of living of the average person if you look at it from before industrialization up until today.


I agree that we need to figure out our desires over time and by trial and error. That is just a part of life, it is what we should be doing anyway. And it is what we all do, all the time. Desires we had when we were younger were based more on ignorance compared to desires we have today, it is just a learning process.

So I more or less interpret the Loss of Being as basically the fact that we are not born perfect but we must work and experience and discover and figure things out, by trial and error and over our entire lifetimes, achieving a little bit closer to perfect all the time but never getting there, because there is no "perfect" to achieve. There is simply better (or worse), and that is the basic question facing every human being: will he, over time, orient his life toward betterment of himself or not? This can mean in terms of knowledge, philosophy, economics, relationships, emotions and psychology, artistic production, or anything else. But life is a kind of endless climb for something higher, especially human life is this, and I agree we are born into this basic state and there is no escaping it. To idealize any kind of perfect state either "before the fall" or at the far end of eternity, is really fucking stupid.

i see a ton of disconnects in all this marxist theory. for example the two i already mentioned, where i said there is no connection there, and now i see a third disconnect in the idea that the empty center of politics is replaced by the idealized commodity for which we strive when we purchase a product, a specified coke for your [Parodites'] example; what we are purchasing is an experience as well as a product, there is no product in a vacuum without the experience of it. this is why separating the product out from the experience makes no sense to me, it is another error of false objectification. idealization is how thought and desire work, it is how subjective experience works, we interpose our own mental images and ideals as possible, condensed, or reified states of being with the object of our desire, and that is quite literally how we experience the object. fantasy isn’t something we can separate from human conscious experience. rather, i agree with you about the example of the coke can in terms of advertising because advertising just takes advantage of this intrinsic idealizing aspect of human conscious experience, but the advertising nor the images it creates nor the additional desire and idealism it produces in us are the same as our own basic capacity for idealized conscious experience. ads just play on that, raise and distort it a little.

you said that the worker’s relation to the industrial tech producing added value is stolen or taken by the capitalist because the worker is producing more work now with that tech rather than without it (my paraphrase), but that’s no argument for higher wages to that worker. the worker needs access to that industrial tech to even be productive like that, and that tech is owned by the capital owner. it is all part of the same thing. with or without extra industrial tech the basic process of worker to owner relation is the same, and the degree of productivity added by industrial refinement of efficiency doesn’t change that in any fundamental way. therefore i don’t see any kind of theft of surplus value going on, because without access to renting that tech and capital the worker isn’t going to be creating any surplus value to begin with.

i don’t see why refinement of existing productive process somehow leads to worker exploitation if the worker’s wages don’t rise commensurate to the new added value produced as a result of increased efficiency in the productive process, again there is no connection there. the worker does not “own” the value he produces when he works for someone, he has no right to it because it isn’t his property to begin with. his wages aren’t based on some right he has to the products of his labor when he borrows someone else’s machinery and makes something, this idea of there being such a right is another disconnect; rather his wages are just another price versus cost value assessment that has to occur on the side of both parties, worker and employer, and both have to agree to the terms in question. that’s it. there is no more right a worker has to the value he makes using someone elsw’s property than there is a right for a consumer to purchase someone else’s product or for a seller to have a right that someone buys his product at a certain price.

“...it means that now the worker is not being paid for the surplus beyond his physical labor: he is selling his labor-power, relative to what the machine can be used to get out of him.”, no, i disagree with this because that’s not what wages are based on. wages are only based on workers production of value from the perspective of the employer, and that’s only part of the equation. again, wages are a commodity transaction, work for wages, and the value produced or not is secondary to that. there is no connection there.

also, the worker is also gaining extra surplus value from the employer too, because without access to the employer’s capital the worker won’t make as much value, and won’t be compensated for that’s value. he is compensated for the value he makes only at the discretion of the employer who hires him and not out of some mystical connection between the worker’s effort and the actual amount of value he produces by renting access to the employer’s equipment.

i don’t see it as a problem at all, this lack of integration, because none existed to begin with, and because it is precisely this lack which allows value to disperse out into the economy as a whole. if work was integrated in the way you mention between worker and owner then no value would escape the productive process of work, and society wouldn’t raise over time, no value could be added and no employer would employ anyone because there would be no consumers to purchase products.

it is precisely the lack of “integration” that is allowing for economics itself.



there is no integration because even if all three grow at the same rate, which i don’t think we have any way of actually determining anyway, that would only mean that no value is escaping the productive process into larger society. if that were the case then no one would work, because economy would be impossible. even if all three are more or less flattened to the same level, there being minimal skew between them, that isn’t a good thing, and it’s only an approximation anyway since the value gained on either end, by worker andowner, are not commensurate. there is no qualitative link between the wages a worker gains and the products an owner receives from the worker working with the owner’s capital.

an analogy: if i paint a mural on someone’s building i don’t own the mural nor the building, the owner of the building does and he can paint over my mural if he wants to. so much more so don’t i own it if i had to use his own paint supplies to paint on his wall, which would be an even more accurate analogy to how employment works.



In that case of family farms, they had to work 16 hours a day just to produce enough to maintain themselves, there wasn't a lot of extra value that they could use to move upward. And because of that "integration" society as a whole didnt rise much either, because there was very little extra values escaping the productive process out into larger society. A reduction to minimal of efficiency of productive process just means a minimal of value created compared to cost to produce that value, which again isn't a good thing. Luckily we did use technology to improve efficiency, 100 times as you said, probably much more than that. But the worker has no right to the products of his work if he does not own the materials and capital machines he uses to make that product. I think this is where we disagree the most.

If a worker owns his land and supplies and capital, like in the example of a family farm, then yes he owns the product of his labor. But if he is merely renting access to these from someone else, then no, and his work-effort becomes literally a product that he sells to the owner, and the owner and worker must agree on a price for that product (the worker's labor). The product does not magically become owned by whoever assembles it, even if just one worker manages to assemble something from start to finish, which is almost never the case, because individual workers only do part of the process.

Thus there is no "right to the product of one's labor" if that product is made with someone else's stuff. If such a right existed that would be quite literally theft. If I magically own the building wall I paint a mural on, even if the owner gave me consent to paint it there, that would make no sense, and the owner of the building wouldn't agree to let me paint a mural if he agrees that I would then own his wall. It just makes no sense. This is why I so fundamentally disagree with marx and that whole line of thinking. You and I agree that marx's solutions are not actually solutions, but we seem to disagree on the problem marx identifies; you think it is a problem, I don't. I see no intrinsic evil in the capitalist system whereby if you want to rent access to someone else's materials and capital productive machinery then you do not somehow now own the product you helped to produce. Rather, in such cases, you simply agree to sell your labor power as a product to someone else, because by doing that you can earn more value to yourself in wages than you could produce value for yourself otherwise, without being employed in that job. I don't see how this can be refuted, it is just the way it works. And it is much better than trying to return to an "integrated" model which would destroy the motivation to even work or employ people, since in such a state of integration profits would only pay for the cost of the product to be made, since the owner would be paying the worker so much in wages as to not himself, as owner, acquire additional value beyond the cost to produce the product plus its value in the price he fetches for it in the marketplace, and if that were the case then there would be no incentive for the owner to employ anyone. So the higher we raise wages relative to that skew in profit to the owner, the more we undermine the entire structure of the economic system by undermining the incentive for owners to employ anyone; and most people can't own a farm or own the entire means to produce products, that isn't realistic and even if it were, most people don't want to put in all the effort and time it takes to upkeep something like a farm. I would rather work 8 hours a day 5 days a week and receive wages, than own a farm and work 16 hours a day 7 days a week, even if the latter would mean I was not having my labor contribute to the creation of surplus value which is escaping me. This escaping of surplus value is precisely what allows societies and economies to rise, what allows wealth and quality of life to improve for the average person.

The worker still retains his right to his labor-value, no one is forcing him to work at any particular job. He has to choose, freely, to work somewhere, he has to agree to the wages he is paid. The fact that he is producing so much more value now because he is renting access to advanced industrial machines doesn't mean he is now somehow losing his right to how own labor-value, because he didn't have a right to any specific degree or level of value-production to begin with. If he did, that would indicate he has some right to use those machines which are increasing his productive efficiency, and no such right exists.

His right to his own labor-value is preserved in the capitalist system because he agrees to the wages he is paid for selling his work-effort as a product to the employer. He can stop working at any time and go get a different job, or not work, or try to produce products entirely on his own means with his own capital, but he typically does not do that because most people do not own enough capital to do that, and even if they did most people do not want to put in all the additional time and effort it requires to produce something entirely on one's own. That would be horribly inefficient, as in the case of old pre-industrial farming etc.

I simply see no evil in this capitalist arrangement. I think it is inherently good for everyone, all other things being equal and looked at over time. I am quite glad to be able to work and receive wages rather than slave away at a plot of land, and I am quite happy not to have to go through the extra time and effort to market and sell the products I help produce at my job. We gain so much time, freedom, by the worker-employer relationship, compared to the older "integrated" model, so I cannot see how this is in any way a bad thing. Besides, while I agree that we own our own labor-value, that does not magically translate into actual value produced; we have to produce it ourselves, we have to apply our labor-value somehow. There is no right to being able to apply our own labor-value in any certain way.

to [the idea of the underlying metaphysics of this hegelian-marxist approach that originates in this idea of Being without Loss] yes I can agree that this globalist mixed model state capitalism, not really capitalism at all, leads to that end you mention. i would say that if we had stuck to true capitalist principles this “end of history” would never have happened. progress may have been slowed down a small bit (or maybe sped up even) and we would have had closer alignment between capital and human being, so that we could more responsibly use the technology we create and not simply worship it and want to dissolve ourselves into it as people want to do today.

to me the underlying metaphysics are a huge problem as well. i can see that traced through Luther to Kant to Hegel to Marx to Nietzsche to all the postmodern bullshit we have to deal with today. it is a deep error to be sure. and even though i’ve articulated the way to set up economics without such an error, and you are articulating how to look at psychology and philosophy beyond the error, i’m not sure it will really change. the error is so deeply embedded at this point. i wonder what practically speaking would it take to actually root out such a deep and pernicious, nearly ubiquitous error? i don’t even know.

Amazin. This guy just showed me the perfect formula for responding to any leftist accusation of racist, sexist, transphobe, whatever else:

“I’m not afraid of your false accusations and character assassinations.”

Just say outright that you’re not afraid of it, of them. Then you may also point out how pathetic it is they can’t debate actual issues and resort to childish insults as a distraction misdirection tactic because they know they can’t win the actual argument. Lol.

the "far right" (not actual nazis, just people like us, who are anti-leftist and pro-reason and logic and reality... basically not-slaves) is hated by the left and globalism (not sure if there is a distinction between the left and globalism anymore) not because we are correct or because we are arrogant or because w cannot be defeated in our arguments or because we openly despise the left or globalism, rather it is because we are the last obstacle to the globalist overthrow of the planet. there is literally nothing else stopping them sweeping humanity into this globalist utopianism except the fragmented remnants of... mind, which we instantiate and represent.

reality is the enemy of globalism, or at least a certain threshold and layer of reality. globalist-leftism would like to supplant itself and its logics in the heads and hearts of people's realityidentification, but it cannot do that fully yet because these fragmented remnants of "actual reality" still exist, ie. you and me, everyone who stands for truth, freedom, reality, authenticity, not-bullshit, all that.

this is why we are made to be the enemy, and why they are destroying trump. they dont care if america succeeds or fails, they dont even care about trump, except that he represents the last stronghold against their total power over all humans. anyone who isnt "far right" in simply the anti-leftist pro-reality way that we are, is already quite literally dead, which is to say, globalized-cannabilized.

we are witnessing the destruction of the first real American president we have had in a long time, we are seeing this destruction take place in real-time by lies, fake news, threats, and mass propaganda (i.e. "media" and "education" and "entertainment").

but trump himself, no matter what threats have been brought against him, should NEVER have consented to confiscating people's firearms. I don't care if its only a bump stock, there is no distinction. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. And power must rest with the people, period end of sentence.

Guns are absolutely necessary for a free people, because without them the society isnt even possible to be responsible and real enough to value itself, let alone vote for its betterment and to be not-enslaved by psychotyrants with smiley faces.

Trump is now Confiscator in Chief. He just lost re-election.

Congratualtions Mr President. You fucked up. Now kindly go rot in hell while we find someone else.

is this even for real? https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-bans-bump-stocks.amp

what in the fucking fuck. so we live in nazi german now, turn in your guns to daddy gubment. a fucking accessory. to make it fire faster, so fucking what? who gives a shit how fast it fires? somehow a gun isn’t dangerous if it fires more slowly? we shouldn’t be limiting gun firing speeds we shouldn’t even fucking care if someone wants a ms hind gun. i bet it’s pretty fun to fire a machine gun.

but noooo power can’t rest in the hands of the people, we can’t have that! gotta treat law abiding adults like little kids who can’t be responsible with something dangerous. just more slippery slope nonsense toward total disarmament which of course is the goal of all this shit. apparently trump doesn’t even fucking care or he is literally too stupid to see this.

these politicians and gun grabbers are sick mindless scum, and now trump is one of them. just another swamp creature.

what a piece of shit he turns out to be.

i’m done.

humanity is fucked, there is no stopping it. i’m done caring about this scum fucking piece of shit culture anymore. it can rot in the fucking hell it made for itself. the mind has been destroyed, and no one even notices. and we get far with trump despite that and turns out even he is a fucktarded brainless scumworm with no spine. amazing really, to watch your own culture and civilization willingly commit suicide by self-lobotomy, to see this happening in real time. maybe some alien will pick me up and i can be a guest on one of their history shows, give my first hand account of how it all went down.

http://m.startribune.com/ilhan-omar-influence-already-expanding-in-congress/503484652/

Isis is coming home.
So Russia is installing uninterceptible nukes in the Carribean.

Two Muslims elected to the US congress. That is just, insane.

And only the beginning.

I would guess in 10-15 years congress will be full of Muslims and openly 'transgender' people. Culturally speaking the US is lost, already destroyed.

To all of this stock market volatility, despite the obviousness of this being done on purpose, I wonder if they are trying to collapse the economy into a recession or depression but the economy is simply too strong now, because of Trump. Trump has boosted the economy in so many ways, so even now with "smart money" pulling out of the market, the fed raising rates over and over again doing exactly what they did before the great depression, and who knows what the fuck else, despite all that the markets just keep jumping back up. Because every economic indicator seems to be improving.

This must be part of the reason Trump didn't push fiscal responsibility of reducing spending this time, with the last federal budget, because he knew this was coming. He knew they would attack him through attacking the economy and trying to sink it, since they already have culture sunk and now they just need the economy sunk too, and what better than to blame it on Trump. But they can't, because not only did Trump strengthen the economy tremendously and in tons of ways but he also held steady on high levels of spending and borrowing, as an insulator and cushion against what the globalists were about to do. That is my theory anyway.

On top of that, apparently the New Year celebration in Times Square is going to be a tribute to... the media.

Yes that is correct. The media, the fake news globalist slave-ranching mind control complex. These fucking people are not even journalists, most of them are actors who sit in front of a green screen in a million dollar studio reading off of teleprompters. But they are apparently the focus of the entire new year celebration now.

Unbelievable.

I am really beginning to think the US is completely fucked beyond repair. Only because they keep doing this shit to us and so many people are so fucking clueless and stupidly self enslaved and mind numbed that it simply passes as normal. If even 10% more of the populace was wise to this shit, it would not be allowed to occur, the reaction and backlash would be too severe and obvious... but no, even if it is only 25% of the populace that goes along with this shit, actually believes it, that is enough to sustain the poison.

Oh yeah, and there is apparently an international hijjab day in february, so we can all put on sheets around our hair covering it up in solidarity and support to the fact muslim women are forced to cover their hair, their face or even entire bodies, because of islam. we get to celebrate the repressive medieval practices of an old world religion that never went through any kind of reformation or enlightenment period, that still believes it proper to cover women up, no matter if they like it or not. And this is going to be cheered and celebrated.

I think I may just vomit.

Just imagine what all these Muslims and transgenders will do to the US constitution, once they get into congress, courts, and the presidency. It is a slow takeover but it is happening.

What respect would a Muslim or a transgender have for the principles of the US constitution? None that I can think of.

Real journalism, which is something actually very wonderful, important and valuable, is dead and now we are going to dedicate the celebration of the New Year to those who killed it. In the name of... journalism.

Fuck this 1984 hellhole we have been made to live in.

This is very hilarious. Trump just flat out told Erdogan, OK we're pulling out,  can you handle the rest of the cleanup (of isis)? And Erdie of course says Yes We Can, but was entirely shocked by the yuge territory he is suddenly expected to be responsible for.
So now Turkey, not Iran or it Maester Russia are given the prerogative to basically take back some of their old Ottoman status, and they'll sort of have to deliver.  Or I expect Trump to be back in there soon enough. It's not like America needs a pass for access, they are free to overwhelm any force if Trumpo decides on it.

Everyone is pissed including the Israelis but I think this is pretty damned fine thinking. If there is any territory I'd gladly hand to the Turks its their own old land which the Brittoids and the Macons took from them per WW1 and its aftermath.

Most critics write oh no this gives the strmizlwearers free range but since when does Turk defer to Rus? Both have toadally different agendas. Namely, Kristkind Volodja (no irony, he is saviour no 1) wants Russian power and Erdie wants Ottoman power. They can both slap each others knees agreeing on hate for this or that any regular old day but come Christmas they all want the presents for themselves.

Trumper learned from the very best, Gaius Julius Caesar. Damn what a fucking genious to speak with Pezer.

In short for those with slumbering strategic wits, the motherfucking Trumper is about to get the first real use Nato ever had out of its most troublesome member. In other words, he is actually putting Nato to some human use.

Or so yours truly military visionary Fixed Cross sees it fit to call it, friendos.