this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
178 points (98.9% liked)

Communism

2053 readers
221 users here now

Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Or they'll just start talking about the profits exploited being fair compensation for the capital risked by buying, owning, maintaining, and paying for the means of production and other cost overheads (rents, utilities, fees, expenses from networking, permits, advertising, insurance, legal costs, property rates, conveyancing, taxes, logistics). Arguing that what Capitalists put into their business (and providing others a place of employment) is so great that they get greater rewards for success, and harsher losses for failures.

If a business goes under the worker merely has to switch jobs, a boss may end up with a significant loss of status, and wealth, as well as retaining debt.

So I think the propaganda elements of the Capitalist class aren't so necessary, as there are arguments they can try to make against Marxism.

Anyways obviously I'm just demonstrating some of those arguments... And not making them myself, or looking to defend them. I'm more interested in whether others can see, construct, or remember arguments they know which defend the Capitalist class. Knowing your opponent sharpens your reason, and prepares you.

[–] oji@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This argument, too, is addressed in the very first volume of Marx's Capital.

[–] devils_dust@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago

Not trying to be the "sauce?" guy, but are you referring to a specific passage or chapter? Asking b/c I remember the counter to the "digging a hole in the middle of nowhere disproves the LTV" right at the beginning of Capital, but honestly don't remember any passage specific to this argument.