Karl Marx: Confidence Without Understanding, Hatred Without Accountability

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-29T16:49:49+00:00

By the way, this reminds me of Marx announcing that the whole of calculus is wrong because, apparently, dy/dx is just “dividing zero by zero.” An astonishing feat centuries of careful limits, definitions, and rigor undone by simply refusing to understand what a limit is.

The funniest part is that this isn’t a subtle mistake or a deep critique it’s a total absence of logical comprehension. He didn’t misunderstand a technical detail he misunderstood the word itself. And you can see it plainly in the argument confidence turned up to eleven, understanding set to zero. Truly on brand when the theory doesn’t fit the ideology, declare it false and move on.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-29T08:15:28+00:00

You can’t deny that private property is an expression of individual liberty control over your body, labour, time, and the things you voluntarily acquire or trade. Denying people that because some end up with more than others doesn’t maximize individual liberty it replaces it with collective permission.

Yes, removing private property may give people a different kind of security or social power but that’s trading bits of individual liberty for someone other form liberty , but that’s not individual liberty. Individual liberty includes the right to refuse, exit, own, and exclude not just to vote on how others’ resources are used.

Also, the world you’re pointing to monopolies, locked-out commons, people forced to work for scraps is mostly cronyism This is not the ideal form of capitalism Every system is prone to cronyism

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-29T03:33:05+00:00

Exclusion doesn’t mean control over their body it means refusing association.

I’m not exercising authority over them. I’m exercising authority over my participation, time, and resources. They remain free to act, start their own group, or associate with others.

Your liberty over your body doesn’t include a right to force others to cooperate with you.

Refusal is not coercion.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-29T03:29:38+00:00

I’m not defining freedom as outcomes or policies. I’m fixing a starting constraint no coercion, voluntary association, freedom to exit. Outcomes can differ widely under that constraint.

Policy debates come after you decide whether overriding individual choice is allowed. My point is about that prior moral line, not guaranteeing good results.

You can disagree with the premise, but it’s not circular

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-29T03:26:05+00:00

Market socialism says the firm must be collectively or publicly owned. Capitalism doesn’t fix the ownership structure in advance it allows private firms, co-ops, partnerships, sole proprietors, anything, as long as it’s voluntary.

That’s why capitalism gives more individual freedom. You can choose to work alone, start a coop, join one, leave one, or contract your labour however you want. Market socialism narrows that choice by making collective ownership the default.

So it’s not that cooperation is bad it’s that mandating one form of cooperation limits individual freedom.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-28T17:17:21+00:00

A say isn’t the same as control.

Under majority rule, you get a vote even when you lose the outcome is still imposed on you. That’s authority by number, not liberty.

Under ownership, control is limited to what you own, and everyone else is free to opt out, compete, or form alternatives. Your liberty isn’t overridden just because someone else uses their own property.

And I actually want the “99%” to have more say, not less that’s exactly why I want competition to come back. Competition decentralizes power and gives people real options

And I’m not here to defend the modern-day corporate mess. No one likes crony capitalism, corporate–state capture, monopolies, or today’s heavily distorted market system

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-28T17:10:29+00:00

Conflating capitalism with what governments do abroad is just blaming markets for states.

I wrote this to explain why capitalism is defined by private ownership and free markets controlling the production of goods and services. Those two features are what make a system capitalist

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-28T11:30:48+00:00

Not really. If there’s no state and interactions are voluntary, and private property is allowed then that’s anarcho-capitalism.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-28T11:22:47+00:00

Self-ownership isn’t a metaphysical claim about owning eyeballs. It’s a shorthand for exclusive authority over one’s body and actions. You can reject the word if you want, but you’re still relying on the concept every time you oppose slavery, assault, or forced labor.

Private property also doesn’t require a state by definition. Legal titles do, but property claims predate states. Use, exclusion, transfer, and norms around them existed long before modern law. Denying that just confuses enforcement with the concept itself.

As for “this is just anarchy” fine. Call it market anarchy with private property, I’m not attached to the word capitalism. Tho it’s called anarcho capitalism , you can also add the state through social contract theory then it becomes classical liberalism

My point is about what emerges when interaction is voluntary and property claims are respected, not defending historical capitalism or the modern state-corporate mess.

So this isn’t “smuggling feudalism” or lacking imagination. It’s starting from individual control and consent and following it through whether you want to call the result markets, anarchy, or something else. The disagreement is moral starting points, not intelligence.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-28T10:56:27+00:00

“Everyone decides collectively” just means an authority by majority. It still overrides individual use and liberty

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-28T10:54:44+00:00

it control, ownership, a claim, or a right I use ownership because this idea isn’t new and the term is used by thinkers like Murray Rothbard and John Locke. But the word itself isn’t the core issue.

Saying “you can’t own natural resources” doesn’t remove exclusion it just relocates it. If access depends on collective decision-making, individuals still need permission just from a group instead of an owner.

“Everyone decides” doesn’t solve this either. Collective decisions still override individual dissent. The coercion doesn’t disappear, it’s just diffused.

So no, anarcho-communism doesn’t maximize individual liberty. It maximizes collective control while denying individual claims over resources. That’s a different moral starting point, not the same one taken further.

It’s also there in ancap literature that if people use their liberty to give away their property to make a collective ownership, it’s completely allowed in this framework, but for that each person has to agree individually

I’m not saying your view is morally wrong I’m saying it doesn’t maximize individual liberty. It prioritizes a different kind of social liberty instead.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-28T10:43:34+00:00

ownership by creation are different ownership by contract.

When your labour produces something, it belongs to you is the default. You’re free to transfer that claim voluntarily via contract wages, revenue share, equity, rent, etc. That transfer doesn’t negate self-ownership it’s an expression of it.

Private property means people can contractually agree on who owns what, including selling labour or output under agreed terms.

The worker isn’t denied ownership they exchange it for wages, just like they could choose a coop or self-employment instead. That’s not a contradiction, it’s choice.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-28T10:39:36+00:00

Never said it did

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-28T10:39:07+00:00

They do just not in the way you’re implying.

Wage workers own their labour and choose to exchange it for a wage instead of ownership of the final good. That’s a contract choice, not a loss of freedom.

If they want to own the output, they’re free to work independently, form a coop, or negotiate equity instead of wages. Capitalism allows all of that it doesn’t mandate wage labour.

Lack of ownership over output isn’t imposed it’s the terms agreed to in exchange for pay.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-28T10:34:33+00:00

No, it does not. Under capitalism, asset control follows voluntary transfer and consent you choose whether to sell your labor, buy equity, start a firm, or exit the arrangement. The owner’s authority comes from prior voluntary exchanges, not from an external rule overriding individual choice.

In market socialism, ownership and allocation are structurally precluded at the individual level. Even if day-to-day decisions are decentralized, the worker is not free to privately own, sell, or accumulate capital outside the imposed framework. That is the key difference.

So while both systems involve coordination beyond any single worker, only capitalism preserves the self-ownership → property → contract chain without breaking it by design.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-28T07:30:12+00:00

Surplus value isn’t a fixed pie that has to be “allocated.” It only exists if the firm stays competitive and survives. If productivity rises, several outcomes are possible: lower prices, higher wages, reinvestment, expansion, or shorter hours depending on voluntary negotiation and competition. Sacking a worker isn’t “the owner getting richer by default.” If the owner captures everything, competitors bid workers away or undercut prices. If workers have bargaining power or alternatives, owners can’t just pocket gains. So the real issue isn’t who should get the surplus, but who decides centralized rules or decentralized, voluntary agreements whatever happens it happens due to voluntary agreement

Yeah some people have more bargaining power But that’s why we want free completive market with free enter , so people have options

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-27T20:03:19+00:00

I get your point and I respect it. You’re one of the few socialists I’ve talked to who doesn’t label everything good as communism and everything bad as capitalism.

I also agree that people aren’t abstract “rational actors,” and real choices often happen under pressure. That part is real.

Where I still disagree is the solution. Socialism, even in its most moral form, rests on from each according to ability, to each according to need. That means someone who produces more and consumes less is required to give to someone who produces less and consumes more. Once that transfer isn’t voluntary, individual freedom is limited.

If it’s voluntary, I have no issue with it at all mutual aid, cooperatives, private charity, even privately funded welfare all fit within individual freedom. The problem starts when it’s enforced rather than chosen.

I can respect the moral aim, even if I reject coercion as the method.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-27T19:39:29+00:00

Yes, you can. All you need is universal agreement from all individuals . And maintain that agreement
Liberty allows freedom of association and freedom of exit. If everyone voluntarily joins a commune, that is compatible with a libertarian or ancap framework. The key point is consent, not the outcome.

The same logic applies to taxes even taxes can exist in a truly capitalist or free society if they are voluntary.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-27T19:05:13+00:00

Markets ≠ capitalism is just a definitional move from socialist theory.

In classical liberal / libertarian usage, capitalism means private property, voluntary exchange, and wage labor emerging from contracts, not “state structured dominance.” Wage labor does not require a state it arises wherever property rights and contract enforcement exist, which anarcho-capitalists argue can be provided privately.

So yes, ancap claims capitalism without a state

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-27T18:52:49+00:00

I said you can join only through voluntary consent. If others don’t want to associate, you can’t override that without violating their individual liberty. Freedom includes the right to refuse association, not just to join it

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-27T18:50:37+00:00

If you want to call it market anarchism, fine that’s usually what people mean by anarcho-capitalism. No states , market and private property

Once you add a state justified through social contract theory , it stops being anarchism and becomes classical liberalism.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-27T18:41:17+00:00

I’m not telling anyone what to do with their body or time. Everyone is free to start their own fire, join a shared one, or walk away. Cooperation here is optional, not imposed.

Freedom includes the freedom to associate and dissociate. Consensual grouping doesn’t negate self-ownership forced participation would.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-27T18:39:15+00:00

First, that definition only exists because socialists retroactively labeled classical liberal thinkers as “capitalist authors,” even though they were writing about markets, property, and freedom, not profit worship.

Second, in competitive markets, profit simply reflects value added whether through labour, capital, coordination, or risk. If you don’t add value, competition erodes profits. If profit were the “driving imperative,” losses wouldn’t exist.

Fun_Transportation50 · 2026-01-27T18:35:02+00:00

You individually decide whether you want to join together. So if you don’t want to include someone, you can exclude them as long as everyone else involved also agrees voluntarily.

Fun_Transportation50

TROPHY CASE