asu_thomas
My sweet summer child, what do you think politics is? What do you think rights are, and where do they come from? Furthermore, what is ownership? These are fundamental questions to say the least.
Next, Marxists recognize 2 central forms of value:
Use value is abstract, but not subjective.
Exchange value is contextual.
That's it. That's what you need to argue with, instead of your ridiculous straw men above.
Additionally, it can hardly be stressed enough how unimportant labor theory of value is for Marxism as a whole.
Excuse me? The overwhelming majority of Marx's published work was literally advocacy of concrete plans.
See his work with the International Workingmen's Association for some of the most well-known letters and articles arguing for explicit political positions and concrete labor actions: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/iwma/index....
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/View_Transi...
> There, Captain Higgins told his story to the marine reporters. Loathe to blame the owners, Higgins speculated that the schooner’s hull may have been cut by ice in the Straits of Mackinac. However, a review of the vessel’s career suggests that she was little more than a floating coffin by the time of her final voyage. Most vessels of the Trinidad’s era lasted twice as long as she did, but they also received regular recaulking and replacement of decayed or rotten wood and rigging. The insurance records suggest that Trinidad received little of the normal maintenance and was essentially sailed into the bottom of the Lake.
A classic tale of capitalist barbarism and how American workers are manipulated and propagandized into schilling for their masters. Disgusting stuff, and sadly nothing has fundamentally changed in over 150 years.
Are you a communist?
I'm not guessing.
Excuse me? I am acting with an intent of honesty. If you consider honesty malicious, then sure, but that is another point we disagree on.
With all due respect, you seem to be acting with the intent of dishonesty.
For one, your narrative fails to explain why such a drastically disproportionate number of Indian migrants are from upper castes. This is difficult to overstate since nearly all Indian-American migrants are from upper castes that collectively make up only a few percentage points of the total population of India. If you can't explain this, you're obviously missing something or choosing to ignore it.
A college-aged upper class Indian whose parents are alive would have significant wealth and mobility without having investment funds, obviously. As such, their expected path would be through attending American colleges and work visas.
The cost of migrating from India to the US is tremendous. In addition to the more obvious tuition costs and practical costs of uncertainty/risk, the corrupt market for work visas is favored by upper class Indians specifically because it allows them to leverage their family's wealth in what is effectively a black market for access to US employers interested in hiring Indian migrants, and in-turn access to work visas.
It's not "effective culture". It's effective wealth and everybody knows it. Indian-American migrants are almost all Brahmin elite who amassed their riches from exploiting the oppressed Indian working class. There is absolutely nothing impressive about that. It's hideous.
> India is a country that has been growing at an average rate of 7% for more than two decades
Literally who cares? Why should any Indian or American worker give a single shit about this? Why would this make American workers want more Indian migrants moving to America? Because India's elite have a lot of money and oppressed masses? You have no point to make as far as I can tell.
> and has plenty of billion dollar unicorns and a strong culture of entrepreneurship
Again who cares? Not me.