Can you explain how you arrived at these questions? Some of them don't make sense for people who understand marx's ideas.

What is there to explain? How did you arrive at these questions....how is that difficult to understand?

For example #3 is not a question. When you say “according to Marx,” you should provide a quote from him and then ask a question

Yes, I am very familiar with Marx and have studied Das Kapital. I was not looking for more information on him, but rather, I was trying to explain to you how to formulate a clear question so people are able to answer your inquiry.

You shouldn’t expect anyone to read your mind. When someone asks a question, whether it be in an academic, debate, or journalistic setting, you should be as specific as possible. Not say “according to____” then fail to provide a relevant quotation. Your question was removed from any direct context

Also, which part and chapter are you referring to? Volume 1 has eight parts and 33 chapters. Many of the chapters contain a section 3. Once again, please be more specific.

Ok, if I have the same version in front of me that you do, the 13th paragraph deals with the relationship between debtor and creditor as an extension of the buyer and seller. Then, Marx explains how the debtor/creditor relationship is not necessarily linked to the exchange of commodities, because in Roman and feudal times it can be tied to labor and/or land.

So in your third point, you wrote that “(Marxists claim that) not all business is based in exploitation. But according to Marx...”. Yes, the consensus among most Marxists is that shared ownership of the means of production diminishes the risk of exploitation. Also, note that Marx writes that the debtor/creditor relationship “is far more capable” of crystallization,” and “the same characters can be assumed independently..” So even though you refuse to present a specific question through your open ended “according to Marx...” statement, Marx, in the section you referred to, expresses the possibility of exploitation through his use of “can” and “capable.”

Imagine if you and a couple of your friends started a business. You work hard for your company and you all get a share of the profits. Ideally, you each would work as hard as you could to make your business succeed and then you would share in the profits.

The way the majority of companies operate now is that no matter how hard the guy at the bottom works, he doesn’t see an increase of the profits (unless the boss gives him or her a raise/bonus). Rather, the money will go to the CEO, president, and the other higher-ups. But if the worker was able to own a portion of the company through stocks, he or she would receive benefits more correlative to the labor expended. This also helps to answer your first question regarding incentive- when the worker has a stake in the profits, he is more motivated for the company to succeed.

Did this help?

Can you provide some references? I think you are strawmanning Marx's positions here. For example, Marx believed that autonomous workers would control the means of production and the state would disappear. He saw the state itself as entwined with the capitalist system. His theories (rightly or wrongly) predicted more worker autonomy than under capitalism and the dissolution of the state - the opposite of totalitarianism.

if you can provide some quotes for your points we can look at it in more depth.

No, according to his theory (which I am not supporting necessarily) it would be a free exchange of labour. The difference is it would not be exploitative as Marx believed captalism was.

If you read Marx's works it is explained how he thought this would work. Why not post your questions over at r/marxism or r/philosophy -- you will get more informed answers there. If you really want to hear how Marxists justify their positions that would be the place to engage.

From both? Looking at your post history I am not that surprised. Maybe you should reflect on your conduct. Go to a Marx forum, sign up and engage. What you are doing now makes no sense unless you are a troll.

No, but continually posting about Marxism in non-related forums while not really providing sources or references and throwing insults at people who do not agree with you is not really regarded as conduct in good faith. Of course, I fully support scepticism of Marxism and cultural Marxism. If you are interested in learning about them and not just seeking out arguments about them then you would probably behave differently.

Lol. Bye. Try r/philosophy -- I'd actually like to see how you conduct yourself.

1. guns , violence, intimidation, propaganda, indoctrination, deprivation of rights, and a police state.
   
2. The only incentive is to the state. Contracts are meaningless unless they serve the state and agreements will change as the state sees fit.
   
3. Everything is a power dynamic and all output belongs to the state. Any individual effort is an attempt to subvert the state.
4. Marxism doesn't preach happiness, only equality and service to the state.
   

I propose you proselytize about your Odin/Thor religion rather than spamming countless anticommunist rhetoric posts. Seriously, you posted this exact topic at least 5 times just yesterday. I believe you could provide a every interesting conspiracy and draw great conversation on how your religion has been painted as mythology in modern education. Just a thought. Do what you like, of course, just seems this propaganda discourse is more suited for a political theory, history, or a 1950's red scare thread (actually I'd subscribe to that thread, sounds interesting).

It's possible that the issue isn't a lack of a community-wide inability to grasp your questions or concepts but a lack of interest in the topic in a conspiracy sub or a complete fatigue from your war of attrition (repetition has its limits).

+1 for self realization regarding productivity!

Right. Because any true scholar has the ability through extra-sensory perception to know exactly what quotation you are referring to despite any context given in your question.

If you really are interested in getting your questions answered and/or having an intelligent debate, I would suggest you stay away from straw man arguments and insults

I was referring to your earlier “sophomoric” comment. However, referring to anybody as a “typical” anything is a generalization and should be avoided

Once again with the generalizations. Obviously you are incapable of having a civilized discussion without resorting to insults and rhetorical fallacies, so I will see my way out of this conversation. I hope you have a good day and find the answers to the questions you are looking for

What is there to explain? How did you arrive at these questions....how is that difficult to understand?

For example #3 is not a question. When you say “according to Marx,” you should provide a quote from him and then ask a question

Imagine if you and a couple of your friends started a business. You work hard for your company and you all get a share of the profits. Ideally, you each would work as hard as you could to make your business succeed and then you would share in the profits.

The way the majority of companies operate now is that no matter how hard the guy at the bottom works, he doesn’t see an increase of the profits (unless the boss gives him or her a raise/bonus). Rather, the money will go to the CEO, president, and the other higher-ups. But if the worker was able to own a portion of the company through stocks, he or she would receive benefits more correlative to the labor expended. This also helps to answer your first question regarding incentive- when the worker has a stake in the profits, he is more motivated for the company to succeed.

Did this help?