/lit/ - Literature

>>13971310
where do the proportions in that image come from? If you doled out the profits equally to all the workers what would the new proportion of taxation be?

>>13971310
All the classic books you'll find with a quick google, but i think some newer marxist stuff is pretty underrated. You'll find more modern stuff more relevant to your sitation
- Zombie Capitalism by Chris Harman (relates marx back to the 2008 recession and modern central banks)
- Marx, Capital and the Madness of Economic Reason by David Harvey
- Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher (capitalisms effect on culture)

Just read The German Ideology and Capital Vol 1. Btw marxism is not a complete system. He is based but isn't perfect.

Just take a high school econ course goddamn how can people still fall for the ltv in this day and age

>read the communist manifesto
>only got a few policy proposals out of it
really? you didn't notice how the descriptions of globalisation was the exact same as what's happening today? that's like the first fucking chapter.

>>13971321
the proportions are wrong, generally the labour share of product is around 60%

>>13971310
if i agree to give the surplus value away so i can have an income , how is this unfair ?
>not all exchanges/deals are equals in labor value

>>13972540
why do you agree to it?

Taxes are so much more than what any capitalist "takes". Taxes are generally, all added up, 50% of total income. While any given company has maybe 1% profit, maybe, and now that's divided among all the workers. Even if some workers aren't counted, that's still literally nothing. You make way way more by the business being organized than you "lose" by working there.

>>13971310
Why don't commies ever start their own businesses based on the commie model, run by the workers?

>>13972525
Ironically this was one of the most radicalising experiences for me.
In my high school econ course i got to experience my teacher
>talking gleefully about her past time as an accountant where she helped 'high net worth individuals' 'minimise' their taxes (NOT AVOID, NO NO YOU CANT CALL IT AVOIDANCE THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL)
>talking about "increasing incentives" to work when describing my country's dogshit neocon government cutting welfare even further, just putting the boot on the neck of the poorest to fund tax cuts for the wealthy
>the curriculum states it is a strength of my country's central bank that it is free from 'political bias' i.e largely unaccountable to the ordinary people most impacted by their decisions and their elected representatives

>>13972569
If the govt took as much as it spent there wouldn't be a deficit. A 10bn deficit shows you're receiving say 100bn worth of services and paying for 90bn. You think a privatised substitute will let you pull that shit?

>>13972578
They do? They usually fail though

>>13972583
Most businesses usually fail.

>>13972525
>Take econ course.
>Dude values are subjective, trust me bro.
Is this what enlightenment feels like?

>>13972531
>The 10 tenets in the communist manifesto are Socialism
They where no even the beginning of Socialism, let alone of Communism. Read the fucking book again.

>>13972589
ded

>>13971310
start with grundrisse

>>13972525
read a theory of value, by luigi pasinetti

>>13972582
I don't see how that's related, or what your point is.

>>13972583
Correct.

Marx wished to have labour as life's prime want. You will not get away from the essentials of wagecucking with Marxism.

>>13971310
>where do i go from here?
One way flight to North Korea

>>13972578
Because each individual business within a market capitalist economy must exploit workers as egregiously as possible, or they will be defeated by competitors. Individual worker co-ops cannot be the solution
>in b4 "so you admit capitalist businesses are more efficient???"
yes, if kids on a dollar a day at shoe factories with suicide nets is efficient then call socialism inefficient any day.

>>13971310
How about instead of spending time reading a book to help you whinge you read a book to help you advance in the world? Absolute fucking cumcel

>>13971310
What an incredibly misleading infographic.
Your ideology is only supported by lies.

>>13972603
lol he used composing music as an example of productive labor. Its basically ludic play.

>>13971310
Wow This graph is completely retarded, my income has either been litteraly counted twice or every job is a net economic loss for the capitalist.

>>13971310
Also as european i pay about 70% of what i declare as taxes to mantain little marxist shits like you in the public administration so the smallest dot should be a lot larger.

>>13972614
>Every single bit of energy and effort you ever do must be productive and to "advance in the world"
I sure bet all your knowledge and activities are aimed at making you "advance in the world", whatever that means.

>>13972632
As a British worker I'm earning less in real terms now than I was a decade ago because of moronic shitheads like you who think flooding the employment market with former government employees in exchange for a minor tax cut will make them rich.

>>13972632
And your taxes are redistributed as corporate welfare, subsidies and tax breaks to big corporations. They then proceed to distribute this money to shareholders that hide their money in tax heavens and doesn't even come back to the national economy that feeds them.
But sure keep crying about the Marxist boogeyman while living in a Neo-liberal society that sucks you dry to give it all to it's cosmopolitan elite.

>>13972644
>flooding the employment market with former government employees
They're litteraly impossible to fire.
Try again.
>while living in a Neo-liberal society
We litteraly live in socialism. It's not even ambiguous. The people moving money to tax heavens are, coincidentially, all politically leftist when you ask them.
This is as close to applying your ideology we will ever get.

>>13972656
>it's cosmopolitan elite.
You can say (((it))). We're amongst friends.

>>13972525
Hard to get any more blue pilled than this

>>13972666
>We litteraly live in socialism. It's not even ambiguous. The people moving money to tax heavens are, coincidentially, all politically leftist when you ask them.
>This is as close to applying your ideology we will ever get.
So what is it? Is Socialism big state and big taxes or tax evasion? Are you genuinely retarded?

>>13972666
>they're literally impossible to fire
they've reduced the number of govt employees by 1 million
>We litteraly live in socialism.
yeah remember when we abolished private capital?

>>13972668
Money has no color. You ethnicity doesn't matter when you are a shareholder.

>>13972689
Socialism is big state for ME
and tax evasion for your darling intellectuals and big businessmen, the élite which you worship.
>>13972692
>they've reduced the number of govt employees by 1 million
Too few. They're Also completely unqualified for most jobs in the private sector anyway so they just got shuffled.
Also You're like a guy that received hearth surgery and now SEEEETHES because the sutures make him look uncool. Perhaps next time don't clog Your arteries.

>>13972698
You're right, only your ideology counts in the end. It's just a coincidence that 90% of a certain ethnicity subscribes to a certain ideology.

>>13972705
yo man stop

>>13972705
Are you feeling unwell anon?

>>13972709
>>13972713
Lol, immediately down to samefagging and rhetoric tricks.

>>13972707
[source needed]
>inb4 /pol/ infograph

>>13972705
>Socialism is things i don't like
I am glad to see the definition of this word getting progressively devaluated, dumber, and more imprecise as retards continue talking about it.

>>13971310
Here's the other image, OP. Think you forgot it, senpai.

>>13972579
> high school econ

Yeah anon truly enlightened.

>>13971310
>just finished the communist manifesto pamphlet but the only thing i got out of it were the bulleted principles communists stand for like the abolition of private property and inheritances which i agree with
Try reading it again then, this time paying attention. Also read the 1872 preface: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1872

>where do i start with marx?

>Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm
>The German Ideology, Chapter I
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm
>Comments on James Mill, Éléments D’économie Politique
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/
>Wage Labour and Capital
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm
>Value, Price and Profit
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm
>Capital, Volume I
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=3A7C252A6E89CC23A1EBC955B6E22FFA

>>13972578
Because the "commie model" is the abolition of "businesses".

>>13971310
Okay dingus, I´ll bite the bait.

Its because the owner uses that surplus to reinvest or because that is a payment for the time his money was being used in the company... you know, like an interest rate.

Taxes are used: 70% to pay for useless crap like wars in places you have never heard, services to idiots who are useless, or is wasted on gov stupid stuff. 30% is used to pay for things people actually need.

>>13972644
>flooding the employment market with former government employees
>government employees were somehow not part of the labour market before
you either don't understand basic economics or you genuinely believe that anyone who works for the government is entitled to a piss easy job for life. god commies are retarded

Start with the 1844 manuscripts for sure. I think they're simultaneously the most accessible and the most important for modern Marx studies. Read the first part of Capital Vol 1 alongside David Harvey's lecture series. Lukac's "History and Class Consciousness" is also a must as he basically recounts the 1844 manuscripts before they had even been discovered (which is pretty fuckin incredible).
Then read Marx's 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, which is the sort of unsung great work, essential if you want to read critical theory (particularly Walter Benjamin and Marcuse).

If you're tired of wage cucking, what do you think is going to be the easier solution?
1. Start/join a revolution that will overthrow the system and replace is with something radically different requiring the seizure of everyone's assets will ideals contrary to fundamentals of said society (particularly the US constitution).
2. Learn how to play the system so you can live a good life
Even commies don't think communism is achievable in the next 10-20 years so why waste your life fighting for the chance of a better one in old age (I would dispute this but it's not necessary for this point). You're better off learning personal finance and marketable skills so that you can get a better job. Ideally, a job/business that allows you to work remotely so you can earn a 1st world income in a 3rd world country. This will give you a great standard of living whilst allowing you to save/invest for old age.

>Marxist ressentiment thread
sage

>>13973141
The commie version of this would just be inverted

>>13973585
Go go bed faggot

>>13973565
cuck

>imagine being a Marxist in 2019

Fortunately it’s most likely just a phase. Most Marxists stop being Marxists once they earn their first pay cheque.

>>13973711
He's right you know

>>13973767
Historically, most people *become* Marxist after getting their first paycheck

>>13973565
Sounds boring I don't want anything to do with the corporate world give me the revolution

>>13972578
The hell of the firm is that there is a firm, not that the firm has a boss.

>>13972688
Labor is not connected to value in any meaningful way

>>13971310
>Wage Labour and Capital
It's a draft version of the real deal, the Big C's, so it's shorter and easier to read. It covers all the important points without going into the nitty-gritty detail with mathematics.

>The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin
A good dive into contemporary anarchist thinking, which agrees on similar points you've mentioned. Checking the "other half" of anti-capitalist philosophy if a valuable effort which yields a significantly greater understanding of the whole, even if you'd choose to stick with Marx alone from there onwards.

Taxes are only theft when you see no benefit for them.
Which I am not getting any benefit from paying taxes, therefore it is theft

>>13973890
Economically valuable things are created through human effort at transforming nature according to our needs. This is so obvious that to deny any meaningful connection between the two you must either not understand the words involved or lack a functioning brain (or be epicly baiting).

>>13973968
The fact you know how to write sort of disproves that.

>>13973990
The relationship between value and labor is completely arbitrary

>>13974023
Elaborate
t. Otherfag

>>13974023
It clearly isn't and I personally proven this empirically with my team. We did an experiment where over the a decade various people were purchasing a service of cocksucking from your mother. Turns out that the price of that service was very strongly correlated with the duration of the cocksucking that was being purchased.

>>13973767
It’s literally the opposite lol. I was a libertarian all through high school and became an ancom after a year in the workforce.

>>13974023
The relationship between intelligence and you is completely arbitrary

>>13973243
not him but ive read all that besides socialism utopian and scientific do i have to read that

>>13974578
yes

>>13974624
what about the condition of the working class in england, i have it but i wanted to finish capital 3 and be done with marx/engels for a while

>>13972569
dude government taxes are like 15% at most while rent, insurance, utilities, car, food, internet make up 70%. there is no goddamn reason why utilities shouldn't be publicly owned when it's public money that produced it and funds its upkeep i fucking hate throwing away $100 a month to att for shit internet

i got redpilled at my first job after i dropped out of high school. i told my coworkers i was getting paid 50 cents more than they were even though they'd been there more than a year before me and the supervisor threatened to fire me if i tell anybody how much i make again. i got so mad i quit the next day and didn't realize for years that that was illegal for him to do. if i could get fired for just that, i wonder how many people are denied promotions or higher positions of power if they identify instead with the working class and want to work for their benefit instead of the rich

>>13974629
I think the stuff Marx wrote on the subject in Capital is enough to get the correct idea.

A Logical principle: Either ALL might makes right or NO might makes right.

A Libertarian principle: Might makes right when I give it but does not make right when I receive it.

Truly, all tyrants have failed to do a single thing too awful for Libertarian idiocy to justify.

>>13971310
Read Veblen instead.

>>13972569
The difference is profit, wages and rent presumably end up being spent somehow. Corporations use their profits to reinvest, workers use their wages to buy consumer goods and rentiers use their income for expanding their claims on more unearned income. Taxation in a fiat system simply liquidates money. The effect of taxation on real income is complex but obviously taxing corporations and consumption is regressive. Government spending isn't really constrained pecuniarily speaking today in most countries but the effect on real income is also complex.

>>13973968
Bad service isn't "theft" or every story with a no return policy would be out of business. The value of a number of assets you probably own (car, home, etc) is being inflated by subsidized infrastructure (and that's not to mention the shit ton of things you don't think about working behind the scenes). Obviously you can claim enforcing intellectual property is theft and inflation isn't the primary thing we should be worrying about today but the conservative forces that be would share different values than you.

>>13973157
Anyone can know the truth if they are open to it.

>>13974694
Considering how terrible infrastructure is, I'm not sure trusting the govt. to handle it is the best idea.

However, this is largely an issue with govt. inefficiency and has been a problem forever.

>>13973335
I think the point is it probably doesn't need to be that way and we're being taken advantage of.

>>13974011
Schools and education didn't always used to be this way. It wasn't that long ago.

>>13973335
>Taxes are used: 70% to pay for useless crap like wars in places you have never heard, services to idiots who are useless, or is wasted on gov stupid stuff. 30% is used to pay for things people actually need.

On closer examination this isn't true. If you don't tax you just have more money and higher nominal incomes. Surely a Soviet of private businessmen could provide liquidity ad infinitum if government gets out of the way but nonetheless that's silly. If you want to criticise government budgeting and priorities I can get on board with that but you're confused since you think taxes somehow "pay" for anything. That would be like examining the balance sheet of a corporate pizzeria to find out if they're holding their coupons received in vaults as collateral to finance their operation.

>>13971310
Yeah, you imbecile, maybe you should get higher qualifications.

If you're poor blame it on yourself, you incompetent loser.

If you don't want it, find another job. Fucking idiot.

>>13972525
Which is why they make little money: they are too idiotic to be rich. Then they get envious of those of us who have more money than they have and begin to plot a little revolution in their tree houses.

Thank heavens the poor are poor. It would be a waste to place money in the hands of such incompetent people.

>>13972614
altering yourself to fit the demands of a hell machine that eradicates all human values is not advancement but degradation

Is it just me or did philosophy end with Marx? It's like nobody has managed to build on where Marx and Engels left us.

>>13975138
every single person itt can smell that you're a kid that never worked a day in his life

>>13975187
Every single person in this thread can smell that your high school crush ignored you and found herself a guy with a better car instead.

>>13975145
How did he solve the problem of induction? How did he explain qualia?

Fucking imbecile. You've never studied philosophy, you idiot.

>>13972540
>if i agree to give the surplus value away so i can have an income , how is this unfair ?
you wouldn't agree to it if your basic needs were being met. we wouldn't be NEETs otherwise

>>13972525
Small brain.

>>13975216
Get a job, glorified welfare leech

>>13975216
why the hell would you want to have a woman who will spread her legs for a ride in a nice car? for any sane person the scenario you described would be positive because the nice car guy is stuck with a whore and i dodged a bullet. do you imagine yourself as the nice car guy in this scenario, because if so that's tragic and evidence of the damage that submitting to capitalist ideology does to your values.

>>13975145
>Is it just me or did philosophy end with Marx?
No, it ended with Hegel (and Feuerbach), as Marx wasn't a philosopher.
>It's like nobody has managed to build on where Marx and Engels left us.
To "build on where Marx and Engels left us" means to see a communist revolution through (see Theses on Feuerbach). In this respect we could rightly say that the Paris Communards and the Bolsheviks did manage build on it, since their experience will definitely prove invaluable in the final push.

>>13975263
>why the hell would you want to have a woman who will spread her legs for a ride in a nice car?

Communist version of sour grapes.

>will spread her legs

That's why, commie incel.

>>13973565
>dude just be complicit with billionaires raping children and corporations genociding brown people for money it's easy

fuck off what kind of drooling useful idiot thinks option 2 is a sane choice to make in this fucking age?

>>13975292
In this age which is the most prosperous in the history of humanity?

I genuinely don’t understand how Marxists/communists believe their system would work. Like okay, you somehow manage to abolish private property and return all “surplus labour” to the workers. Now what? If they're free, private property will return and people will start working for one another again. Most people in the west dislike communism, and this whole vision for society would never last. The only way to keep it that way is through extreme tyrannical force, secret polices, the whole shebang. Capitalism is the natural consequence of small government and, by extension, political freedom.

So really, how do communists and Marxists see this shit playing out in practice? It’s virtually impossible to abolish private property 100%. They tried that in the Soviet Union and it failed pretty hard.

Keep in mind that as long as I’m alive (which will be for the next 60-80 years, presumably), I will never accept communism and will always fight it. You commies will never see your utopia come to fruition so long as I’m alive, because I and many others will be there to interfere. So I guess the only option is to either kill me or somehow brainwash me. Doesn’t sound very nice.

>>13975317
most prosperous for WHO? i'm living paycheck to paycheck, no hope to ever own land, no hope to raise a family, and expect to work well into my deathbed just to pay my medical bills so i'm just one accident away from being homeless or declaring bankruptcy.

>>13971310
>agree with abolishing inheritance

well you are already a sociopath with no natural human desire to help your family so good start.

>>13973565
Why not do both?

>>13975329
>If they're free, private property will return
Why would private property return? Why would anyone work for a boss again when they could work a socialist business and have the full value of their labor and have control in their lives? What incentives are there to join the private one?

>They tried that in the Soviet Union and it failed pretty hard.
Soviet Union was literally private property but bourgeoisie changed to government official. It wasn't socialism.

>>13975333
For the largest proportion of people ever.

Look at the data, you idiot.

>>13975365
>Why would anyone work for a boss again when they could work a socialist business and have the full value of their labor and have control in their lives?

In order to prove communists wrong, I'd do it. And then what? What would *you* do? There are people who like private property, that's simply the case. Deal with it. I like it. Why? Because I like it, that's all. I'd work 8 hours a day out of spite, and then what? You'd have to arrest me in order to stop me growing, and then there would be no freedom, and then your friends in other countries would say ''Oh, but that's not reeeeeaaaaal communism...''

>>13972614
Get a self.

>>13975329
>If they're free, private property will return and people will start working for one another again.
Your whole argument stands on this pre-assumption.

>>13975365
Anyway, if you want a real answer it's that capitalist businesses are more productive because of competition, and therefore they can afford to pay more than workers would gain in a socially-owned corporation where free riders abound.

But you'll never understand that, no matter how often I repeat it.

>>13975400
Historically true, and it needs only one person to be true. If you don't want it to be true, you have to arrest that person, which is tyranny.

He's right.

(Private property can't be 100% abolished anyways, because you gotta have a mechanism to control prices.)

>>13975329
>I genuinely don’t understand how Marxists/communists believe their system would work.
Neither do they. There's no clearly defined final-state utopia, just a struggle towards towards abolishment of classes.

>>13975396
You would slave your life away for much less money and no control in your life to spite someone? Doesn't that seem pretty retarded? I don't think most people are that ideologically opposed to socialism that they would take less money and more hours lol. You might be the biggest bootlicker I've ever seen. You are the uncle tom would continue working for his master for free after slavery was abolished.

>You'd have to arrest me in order to stop me growing,
I wouldn't have to because literally no one would join you. You wouldn't effect the economy in anyway. It would be you and maybe 6 other guys who are hardcore anti socialists. Most people just want to live their lives and if socialism brought them a better life why would they be opposed to it?

>>13975419
>Private property can't be 100% abolished anyways, because you gotta have a mechanism to control prices.
Tankie retards are gonna post Cockshott but you can have markets and socialism.

>>13975419
>If you don't want it to be true, you have to arrest that person, which is tyranny.
That person would first have to seize productive assets fromt he community, which is theft.

>>13975435
>I wouldn't have to because literally no one would join you. You wouldn't effect the economy in anyway. It would be you and maybe 6 other guys who are hardcore anti socialists.

So you wouldn't arrest people who wish to have their own private business? So they'd be free to choose between a co-owned enterprise and a private one?

Good to know you support the current system, now fuck off back Reddit.

>>13975365
You’re offering nothing but conjectures and rationalizations. The fact is—and this is a fact, not an opinion—many people like private property and capitalism. What the fuck even is a “socialist business”? What does that look like? On top of that, what does getting the full value of one’s labour look like? There’s no evidence or examples of any of this either working or existing. If you step away from your hypothetical magical utopia, the reality is people will choose to work for one another. That’s how they do it now. If you look at any country with relatively high amounts of freedom—US, Canada, Singapore, UK, etc—people choose capitalism. This is a simple reality.

So again, how would you implement your idea of communism without extreme force? You clearly haven’t thought this shit through if your only argument is “but why wouldn’t people like my system?!” They don’t. And I sure as hell don’t.

>>13975400
It would happen in any system where people have freedom. 'gee bob makes nice pots, maybe if I chop logs for Steve he'll give me a rabbit I can trade to Bob'

>>13975456
No, he could voluntary buy, say, a sewing machine from another country.

Another problem with you retards is that you completely ignore the existence of other countries and the fact that people can travel and exchange goods between them.

>>13975458
>So you wouldn't arrest people who wish to have their own private business? So they'd be free to choose between a co-owned enterprise and a private one?
What's wrong with arresting people for having a private business if morally society has agreed it's a bad thing? You can't own another human anymore. Child labor is illegal too.

>>13975456
>theft

Guy chops logs to sell to people then gives his brother some of the money in exchange for helping him cut more. Where is the 'theft' here?

>>13975407
>Anyway, if you want a real answer it's that capitalist businesses are more productive because of competition, and therefore they can afford to pay more than workers would gain in a socially-owned corporation where free riders abound.
Ive actually seen Marxists say exactly this when I ask them why they don't form worker-owned companies. They say that those companies couldn't compete with capitalist ones because the latter are more efficient(they frame this in terms of being more ruthless)

>>13975466
Humans in primitive state have more freedom that civilized humans, yet they sort of lack in the private property department.

If Bob makes nice pots and you know how to chop trees, then you would chop the trees and Bob would make pots. At the end of day you would take some of the pots, Steve would take some of the lumber and Bob would take the rabbit. No need to cuck yourself out.

>>13975490
>cuck

cutting trees for yourself as a trade good or cutting trees for others in exchange for compensation is the same bloody thing.

>>13975477
>Guy chops logs to sell to people then gives his brother some of the money in exchange for helping him cut more.
That doesn't make sense. Why would the guy pay his brother to chop the timber, when his brother can sell it as well?

>>13975329
> If they're free, private property will return and people will start working for one another again.
Citation needed. Why would you relinquish your ownership of your workplace to the ownership of a single guy? How would you restart the accumulation of capital?
>Capitalism is the natural consequence of small government and, by extension, political freedom.
All the big corps thank you for your support.
>They tried that in the Soviet Union and it failed pretty hard.
Pic related
>You commies will never see your utopia come to fruition so long as I’m alive
Easy solution to that one.

>>13975489
And right they are, but for most people the so-called ''ruthlessness'' of capitalism (working in a well-functioning place eight hours a day then going back to enjoy 8 hours of free time plus weekends drinking coke, watching soccer, reading novels, writing books or whatever they prefer, because the array of options is so large) is much better than the ''equality'' of communism, so they don't care.

>>13975472
That's the point I was arguing: in order to be coherent, commies have to defend what you are defending (which is also a fine justification for arresting commies in most societies, since the majority of people have agreed that communism is a bad thing).

>>13975502
A huge percentage of people lack the inherent intelligence and drive to be independently successful.

>>13975490
>Humans in primitive state have more freedom that civilized humans,

Such as the freedom to die at childbirth. Nice.

>yet they sort of lack in the private property department.

Do you still believe in that 200 yo pseudo-anthropology? My God. People have had their private spears for thousands of years. People like having things. Deal with it.

>>13975463
>many people like private property and capitalism.
It's anecdotal but I don't think many people even understand what these words mean. They just like the idea of the buzzword they have been taught. They like capitalism because that's what we have and it's good and they don't like socialism because that's what Soviet Union had and it's bad. That's the extent of most peoples knowledge.

>What the fuck even is a “socialist business”? What does that look like? On top of that, what does getting the full value of one’s labour look like?
A workers cooperative is an example of socialism. It's worker ownership of the means of production. Each worker gets the full value of their labor.

>There’s no evidence or examples of any of this either working or existing.
Every single socialist society that has existed (the ones with worker ownership) is an example of this happening. Currently existing is Rojava. Workers cooperatives also exist all around the world in capitalist economies.

>If you step away from your hypothetical magical utopia, the reality is people will choose to work for one another. That’s how they do it now.
They have no other choice. What else are they gonna do? Let's just make a hypothetical and take you to the Emilia Romagna region of Italy. One of the richest regions in Italy where two thirds of the people who live there work in workers cooperatives. If you were a young man looking for a job and you can choose to join a workers cooperatives where you are going to have much higher pay, less hours, and control in your workplace why would you ever choose the private firm?

>So again, how would you implement your idea of communism without extreme force?
There are reformists who want to do it through democracy. Corbyns right to own policy for building workers cooperatives in a capitalist system is a good example of this. There are also the revolutionaries which use extreme force and I don't think there is any ethical problem with that. You don't have any problems with the extreme force we used in the American/French revolutions right?

>>13975532
Can't get more reddit than this, my friends.

>>13975497
haha, no. In one you are indpendent, in the latter you obey will of another man for financial compensation. When you sell your labour the other guy has clearly an advantage over you. Either he owns the forest or network capable of selling that wood.

>>13975329
Marx wrote a lot on why private investment would eventually cease to be a viable economic arrangement. Obviously private ownership isn't particularly super relevant today, no one would say corporations are going to be broken up and given to owners to run in a fully liable fashion. Private ownership of production is largly history already. Capitalism was spread worldwide by active governments (saying the British empire was small is a little disingenuous) and you've seen continual growth in powerful governments and corporations. Literally no one believes in laissez faire today but fringe ideologues. The thing is corporate liberalism seems to be very viable which Marx never taught about, "communism" or "socialism" may not ever come about if there is no reason for it.

>>13975551
Says the commie.

>>13972609
>Because each individual business within a market capitalist economy must exploit workers as egregiously as possible, or they will be defeated by competitors.

No they don't. If they did, then only one company would exist.

>>13972618
Yeah, prefect example of how he didn't work a day in his life. Neither have you, by the sound of it.

>>13975552
Or you are below average like half the human race and find it easier to take instruction than figure it all out. Unless you plan to kill anybody with a low IQ these people have to do something.

>>13975556
>Marx wrote a lot on why private investment would eventually cease to be a viable economic arrangement

Marx wrote a lot of bullshit. That's what happens when you're a pseudoscientist.

>>13975532
Yes, but did someone else own the spear, charge you for using it and made it borderline impossible to make your own without paying fees?
No, but that's modern private property.

>>13975532
>Such as the freedom to die at childbirth. Nice.
How do mutts say it? Freedom ain't free.

>Do you still believe in that 200 yo pseudo-anthropology?
Yup, would be nice if you used scientific research as a counter-argument instead of redditspeak.

>>13975145
It's just you.

>>13975567
Chop wood->Take it to tribe->Get compensation for the wood
Ask someone to tell you to chop wood->Do as he says->Carry it to the tribe-> He gets compensation and gives you half of it

If someone was stupid enough to the the 2nd option, eugenics might indeed be an option.

>>13975463
Most people are content as long as they have a decent quality of life. Regulated corporations did an ok job at that and are still taking over the world but laissez faire is history.

>>13975569
We live in a post-commodity money world where the biggest economy is centred on military keynesianism and the second biggest government is formally still a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. Strange shit is still ahead.

>>13975567
If they killed the half with low iq then there would just be another half with low iq. Democracy always fails by it's very nature.

>>13975597
>stupid

Or he could just be young and learning the trade/ saving the resources to buy his own tools.

>>13975510
>population dies off faster than economy crashes
>GDP per capita goes up by a technicality

Lol

>>13971321
>where do the proportions in that image come from?
Probably the ass of the guy who drew it.

Business who are doing well usually have a profit margin of about 5%. They pay much more than that in taxes.

>>13975329
>If they're free, private property will return and people will start working for one another again.
No, if they're free then private property won't return, because private property is what had been the content of their unfreedom in the first place.
>Most people in the west dislike communism
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas"
You're 174 years too late there buddy.
>and this whole vision for society would never last
Who gives a shit about visions?
>The only way to keep it that way is through extreme tyrannical force, secret polices, the whole shebang.
Yes, against the reactionary classes, until class distinctions, disconnected from their life support, wither away. Unnecessary after that.
>Capitalism is the natural consequence of small government and, by extension, political freedom.
Small government and bourgeois freedom are natural consequences of the rise of capitalism. Not-so-small government is the natural consequence of the consolidation of capitalism. And communism is the natural consequence of the fall of capitalism.
>They tried that in the Soviet Union and it failed pretty hard.
No, Stalin literally wrote private property into the 1936 constitution of the USSR and pretended to have reached socialism. There weren't any serious attempts involved.
>So I guess the only option is to either kill me or somehow brainwash me.
No, the obviously correct option is to ignore you, the irrelevant little turd you are.

>>13975365
>Why would anyone work for a boss again when they could work a socialist business and have the full value of their labor
"Value" and "business (enterprise)" are categories of capitalism which are negated in socialism. What you're describing then has nothing to do with the latter, but is a utopian, idealized version of capitalism.

>>13975396
>In order to prove communists wrong, I'd do it.
But you won't be the one living under communism. It will be your grandchildren (metaphorical ones in your case of course) who will be laughing their asses off at the archived posts of their moron granddaddy, liberal cuck supreme.
>There are people who like private property, that's simply the case.
And there were many people who liked chattel slavery. Ideas of a definite historical period are not to be taken at face value. They will transform once the conditions on which they had arisen get revolutionized.

>>13975407
There's no competition between firms in socialism, because there are no firms. I wish luck to all the crafty capitalist entrepreneurs in such conditions. I'm sure they will come up with something.

>>13975419
>Private property can't be 100% abolished anyways, because you gotta have a mechanism to control prices.
This amounts to "private property can't be 100% abolished because you gotta have private property". "Prices" obviously go as well, as they're only necessary when there's private property in the first place.

>>13975471
The worldwide character of production (and hence exchange) means that socialist economy also has to be worldwide. Therefore you can only be asking about a situation in the middle of the revolutionary transformation, when only some areas of the world are controlled by socialists. There are several possibilities here, but let's just consider one: the revolutionary war is in progress, martial law is effect, neither you nor your sewing machine are allowed to cross the border. But you're welcome to try!

>>13971310
the revolution will never happen, op

If you think reading 19th-century larp manuals will do you any good, then I hope you are prepared for a miserable life of disappointment and bitterness. Perhaps you don't want that. Please read on, if that's the case—and rest assured, this won't be the usual natsoc/libertarian drivel destroying gommunism with facts and logic. You will find no ideology here, and that is for the better.

First, you need a dose of realism. You're on the right track recognizing that there is a ruling elite that exploits you, but you need to understand that there is absolutely no hope for an elite-less let alone a classless society. The text for this Mosca's Ruling Class, but that is a bigass book that you may lose patience with. Instead, you may have an easier time with a single chapter. Find a PDF of Burnham's Machiavellians and just read the chapter on Mosca. It's not even 30 pages long, so no excuses. It's cold and harsh, but it's all true. Taking notes may help here.

Second, you need a way to deal with reality, because you obviously can't right now (if you could, you would not have turned to Marxian drivel and asked for more). The shortest and quickest way to a healthy general attitude is Aurelius' Meditations. Many good aphorisms and exercises in there, and it is also very short. It does not need to be read cover-to-cover; it will suffice to merely consume it in small doses on a regular basis, coupled with serious reflection (it's not called "Meditations" for nothing).

So, there you go. A short chapter and a short book. No myths, no ideology, just the truth and how to deal with it. You won't change the world—you never could—but you can at least live a better life for yourself and your loved ones.

>>13973157
literally my exact point.
I was responding to someone who said that taking high school econ would clear up all this marxist nonsense, when it only (for me) served to further solidify the absolutely morally bankrupt nature of the status quo

>>13976943
>no ideology
>you won't change the world
That's precisely the ideology of our time. Not really prescribing positives and ideals anymore, just supressing any hope of taking action.

>no one here actually understands libertarian arguments, not even libertarians
When someone exchanges money for goods or service, both parties can have surpus value depending on how much they valued the good or labor.

If owner is willing to pay you 70k but you accept 60k, he has a surplus of 10k per year.

If you were willing to accept 50k but boss offered you 60k, you ALSO have surplus of 10k per year.

>what, but you're getting cheated out of 10k, he would have paid you 70
Your boss could just as easily say you cheated him out of 10k he needs to feed his family, because you would have accepted 50k but allowed him to pay you ten thousand dollars more per year than you actually value your labor.

If you don't like the reasoning or want to make a hypothetical where you are dying of thirst and the boss pays you in drops of water, you ought to at least know the argument.

>>13975673
That's not a technicality, policies that kill people are good for the economy. On the other hand you are less likely to have a 200 iq person in your population if there's only a few hundred people.

>>13972579
>the curriculum states it is a strength of my country's central bank that it is free from 'political bias'
t. retard that lives on a 1st world country
move to zimbabwe if u want to wipe your ass with your currency

>>13977504
>That's not a technicality, policies that kill people are good for the economy.
wtf I love socialism now

>>13977485
>both parties can have surpus value depending on how much they valued the good or labor.
Sorry anon, but that's retarded. Values subjects hold in their head don't mean shit, it's the objective/intersubjective exchange values that actually mean anything. What I think my labour is worth on the labour market doesn't affect how much I will get. It's my skills, state of the labour market and state of labour movement which do.

>>13972579
Do you expect people should pay more taxes than they are required to by law?
Do you think politicians up for reelection should set interest rates?
Do you disagree that, objectively, cutting welfare increases incentives to work?

>>13977548
If you can't see that that is true you might need to take a step back. If I sell you a watch for 10 dollars, but you would have paid 15 and I would have accepted 5, we both have $5 of surplus value.

>>13975365
>Why would private property return? Why would anyone work for a boss again when they could work a socialist business and have the full value of their labor and have control in their lives? What incentives are there to join the private one?
In a socialized business their income would fluctuate with the success of the business. They could sell the rights to their future earnings to a speculator in exchange for a guaranteed income.

>>13977562
If I look at that watch the day after I buy it and realize it's chinkshit and I would pay 2 for it then I suddenly have -3 surplus value. If I after a year develop emotional bond to it and would value it at 100 then I have 90 surplus value. Your definition of "surplus value" is absolutely meaningless.

>>13977883
That doesn't show anything though. In the first example, you had incomplete information and you took a loss because of it. Then over time the watch became more valuable to you.

>>13973890
This is beyond blue pilled and well into stupidity.
Labor creates GDP.

>>13974023
I'll agree that the value can be arbitrary, but it is the most valuable thing to humans. Period.

>>13977922
>value is just the economic term for how much you like something

>>13978006
It sounds like you are trying to say
>value is just a term for how much something is valued

>>13977922
>In the first example, you had incomplete information and you took a loss because of it.
Yet at the time of transaction I was getting a "surplus value" according to you, because in my head the watch had value of 15. If I didn't discover the low quality I would still have earned that +5 surplus value according to your framework.

This sort of reasoning doesn't work for normal people, it might work for situation when two merchants meet to make a deal. First merchant bought the object for 5 and is willing to sell it above that value to make a profit. Second merchant knows of a market where he can sell it for 15 and is willing to buy it below that price to make a profit. The two merchants then haggle the price which will be between 5 and 15. Sum of profit both merchants make would be 10 and it will be divided between them according to their haggling skill. If one haggles better, he will take greater amount of that profit at loss of the another merchant. This is clear "both profit" scenario.

Take another scenario where both parties profit. I'm a merchant that bought watch for 5 and I'm on a road to another city where I will sell it for 15. On the road I'm regularly ambushed by a bandit who demands 5 to let me through. If I hand him 5, he makes a profit and I make a profit. Is this situation morally equal to the preceeding one? Would it be if the bandit declared himself a baron who owns the road?

Point is you can't just set up arbitary values in peoples heads. That's not how people work, people want commodities for the sake of their objective characteristics not for the sake of money-value the commodities have. Especially not on the modern market, where the amount of intersubjective interactions results in objective prices. If you want two subjects to value something differently in money, you need to define circumstances why do they do so, otherwise that example doesn't make sense.

ITS SO WEIRD BECAUSE EVERYBODY EVEN FASCISTS HATE LIBERTARIANS AND THEY STILL CONTINUE TALKING
the BRUTAL sexual intepretation is online fascists want to fuck libertarians ala sex change

>>13973890
Mind of merchant is truly sickening. This sort of reasoning is precisely why I started leaning left.

>>13977548
>What I think my labour is worth on the labour market doesn't affect how much I will get
Demonstrably false in the real world, and on multiple levels.

Perception is a huge aspect of value.

>>13978033
Nice

>>13978043
Yet at the time of transaction I was getting a "surplus value" according to you, because in my head the watch had value of 15

He never said that. If I value my glass cup at $1 billion, that doesn't make me a billionaire. If, instead, I convince someone that my cup is worth a billion, and he pays for it, then I am a billionaire (- taxes).

I'm not going to read the rest of your post.

>>13978068
Well he's just wrong. Even merchants know that labor has value.

t. employed by a literal Jewish merchant

>>13978068
>my labor is what makes my good/service valuable :^)
Fucking retard

>>13978074
>He never said that. If I value my glass cup at $1 billion, that doesn't make me a billionaire.
He precisely said that. My point was something akin to your argument with yhe cup. Also stop redditpanneling.

>>13978076
>Go to restaurant
>No cooks
>No waiters
>Tables are full of dust
Yea, I'm sure everyone would enjoy their time there, you filthy mutt.

has any brainlet made the mud pie argument yet?

>>13978093
The value of those services are determined completely by the consumer, the labor itself doesnt produce value

>>13978100
>The value of those services
>labor itself doesnt produce value
That's beyond retarded. There would be no services to have their value determined without the labour in the first place.

he did more to destroy the rich in 15 years than marx did in 200

>>13978100
Value and price are two different things in economics that have been conflated by a discredited school of thought, that was financed by landlords to invent fallacious arguments to trick brainlets like you and stave off a revolution.

>If I didn't discover the low quality I would still have earned that +5 surplus value according to your framework.
Yes, you would. In IRL you would actually be happy about the watch. Not that I believe the seller should be deceiving people.

>On the road I'm regularly ambushed by a bandit who demands 5 to let me through.
idk about this example. The value is being created by the two merchants and the robber doesn't appear to do anything that should result in him getting a slice. You could disagree if you don't believe in bodily autonomy . You could say he has a right to stab you and it's your responsibility to prevent him. Libertarians would probably jsut say it's a violation of the NAP which is a norm.

>people want commodities for the sake of their objective characteristics not for the sake of money-value the commodities have. Especially not on the modern market, where the amount of intersubjective interactions results in objective prices.
People's come up with a personal money-value for a good based on what they know about the goods objective characteristics. The point is that the subjective value differs from the objective prices, which creates a surplus for people who value the good at higher than the objective price. you seem to already get this from the merchant example though.

>>13978100
Labor obviously has value, people pay huge amounts for it.

>>13978200
>Yes, you would.
Hence deception would create value in your model and process of seeing through the deception would be destruction of value. Such model is obviously bad.

>robber doesn't appear to do anything that should result in him getting a slice
The robber let's you pass through his turf. If you worry about NAP and legitimacy that's why included the option of the robber declaring the road to be his property to point out that such distinction would be purely formal. Would the baron-bandit create value in your model too?

>People's come up with a personal money-value for a good based on what they know about the goods objective characteristics.
They don't. Money-value arises on market, not from subjects themselves. When I gather apples from a tree and process them into juice and hand it out to my friends, not a single time I think in terms of money-value. If I wanted to think in money about this friendly interaction, I wouldn't ask myself "how much do I value the juice", first thing I would do is to check the market for how much is apple juice worth.

>The point is that the subjective value differs from the objective prices
Yes, because price is quantified and value is abstract.

>get this from the merchant example though.
Merchant example showed one merchant who knows location of producing city and second mechant that knows location of the market city. Both merchants would love to kick the other guy from the equation by finding both source and destination (which would inevitably come in real world scenario), and even the actual producers and consumers would prefer direct trade without giving money to the merchants. Unlike the consumer and producer, merchants don't see the watch as an object with actual use, they see it as a trade article that they could make money from, hence they think in money rather than the actual value of the watch.

>>13975673
You are talking about Capitalism right?

>>13978283
>Hence deception would create value in your model and process of seeing through the deception would be destruction of value. Such model is obviously bad.
You say it is obviously bad but it is descriptive of reality that lying to someone can make them just as happy as if what you said was the truth. though i will stress i do not believe it is usually moral to restrict people's information

>Would the baron-bandit create value in your model too?
Between the two merchants, they both feel 5 dollars richer in the original example. The value is created by the trade between them. In this case the baron hasn't added anything, he's just transferring some of the value created by trade to himself.
Also in case you wonder, i'm not against taxation, I'm okay with the baron stealing some money if he uses it to fund public goods.

>They don't.
They absolutely do, at least implicitly. If you feel like you are getting a good deal on something, it's implicit that you think the market price for is lower than the price you would be willing to pay for it (your internal "money-value" of the shirt). Therefore you get some dollar-value surplus from it. If it was exactly at the point where you are indifferent about buying it, you would get zero surplus from buying it. If you don't want to buy something, it's implied that it's market price is above the dolalr-value you place on it.

> I wouldn't ask myself "how much do I value the juice", first thing I would do is to check the market for how much is apple juice worth.
I feel like I'm really hammering at this idea and it isn't working. You'd look up the market value, and if you found out the market value is 0.01c per apple, odds are you value your own homegrown apples at more than that and you won't sell because there's no surplus to be made. If you find out each apple is worth $100 because of a shortage, that will likely be more than your subjective "money-value" you place on it and you will sell it to collect the surplus (the difference between your personal monetary value of the apples and the price at which you can sell them)

>>13976943
>You will find no ideology here, and that is for the better.
ElitISM, StoicISM all the way.
Recommends a book by a reformed Trotskyist that became a conservative and tried to wash it away.
>If you think reading 19th-century larp manuals will do you any good, then I hope you are prepared for a miserable life
>you need a way to deal with reality, because you obviously can't right now
Proceeds to recommend 2nd century Roman emperor larp manual.
>In Marxism you somehow don't have elites anymore, everybody is the same there is no more engineers or doctors or administrators.
>Anime picture when trying to larp as a noble soul.
>You can't change the world, but you should adopt my views, just in case, so you can be sure to never change the world.
>you can at least live a better life for yourself and your loved ones if you adopt Italian Elitism, that's the key to a happy life right there.
Congratulations on being the dumbest yet most pedantic post in this thread.

>>13978100
labour produces objects and services that are socially recognized as valuable

Animal Farm

>>13978350
>l do not believe it is usually moral to restrict people's information
Question was neither that or if it makes a person happy, but if it creates value or not.

>The value is created by the trade between them.
I sincerely doubt that. Consider following: One merchant violently extracts information about location of the watch factory from the other one. Now he trades the watches for 10 a piece, maintaining the same profit. Was value created or destroyed by this immoral process? For the people actually interested in the watch for the sake of watch it was created, because now they got rid of one parasite and they get their watches cheaper. See? That value "created" by the transaction between merchants wasn't really created, but rather sucked out.

>In this case the baron hasn't added anything
He allowed the transaction to happen by allowing you to use his private property.

>If you feel like you are getting a good deal on something, it's implicit that you think the market price for is lower than the price you would be willing to pay for it (your internal "money-value" of the shirt).
It's not my internal price. It's my experience with the market and overal knowledge of shirt prices. Neither I gain any surplus, unless I resell it. It makes absolutely no sense to talk about surplus when you are the final consumer. You are simply minimizing losses, not producing any surplus.

>Because there's no surplus to be made
Considering I didn't spent any money to grow the fruits, there is money to be made even at the low price. If you want to talk about surplus, you would need to drop the esoteric in-head price and actually compare how much time would I spent getting that commodity to the market, how much money do I need to maintain my lifestyle for that time and how much does the commodity yield. If the commodity yields more money than was spend on reproducing labour producing it, that would be the real surplus, because my total assets would increase after the time spend with the apples. Getting surplus money has nothing to do with what's going on inside my head, but how frugal lifestyle do I live. Another question would be if acquiring that surplus would be better than funtime with friends. Clearly funtime with friends doesn't produce any money and putting money-value on it will destroy your soul and make the friendship melt away.

>>13972616
You are very welcome to do the right infographic, with the exacts sources.

>>13972579
I guess you should have paid closer attention, dummy. Tax avoidance is not illegal in the slightest. Tax EVASION is illegal. Every lawful deduction or credit is tax avoidance. Lying is evasion.

And, by the way, every penny that stays in the hands of the people is used for what the people want. Every penny in the hands of government is used for what the special interests that control government want. But you might get a few crumbs to keep you quiet.

>Still waiting for a practical way to implement communism beyond wishful thinking and “But everyone would be on board so it has to work”

>>13971321
The proportions in that image are completely nonsense. Most businesses are lucky to have a 5-10% profit margin while paying 20+% of their overhead in payroll taxes and investment in their labor like workman's comp and disability/liability insurance for their employees in case something happens on the job site.

>>13975685
>>13979084
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/15/amazon-tax-bill-2018-no-taxes-despite-billions-profit

>>13972579
Serious question, do you think people have a moral obligation to pay more of their wages in taxes to an obviously corrupt government than the minimum they are required to?
Do you genuinely think that politicians who are being voted for should be able to campaign on what they think the interest rate should be?
Do you genuinely not understand that overly generous welfare policies are subject to significant abuse and disinsentivize participation in labor? Safety nets are important and all, but are you really that retarded that you think an economy (and by extension a country) can thrive while having a 15% labor force participation rate because half of their physically able adult population is on welfare? That's what you see in most of the high welfare density black areas in America, is 40-50% state service dependency with another 20% working under the table. How do you run these services when there is no tax base to replenish them?

>>13979104
Well yeah, Amazon basically is the government in the United States so really what purpose would their paying taxes serve?

In all seriousness, $11bn sounds like a lot, but what do you think their overhead is? Their net worth as a company is well over a trillion dollars. They have over 125,000 full-time employees in just their fulfillment centers alone. At federal minimum wage (which these guys usually make 2-3 times) you're talking $1.85bn in just wages for their fulfillment centers, let alone their massive computer science expenditures (which data and hosting make up ~1/3rd of their business) and shit tons of external logistics contracting. It would be great if Amazon paid their fair share of taxes on that $11bn in profit but I would be amazed if that's even a 2% margin on their overhead costs.

>>13978093
>go restaurant
>no building, tables, cooking equipment or food
>just naked chefs and waiters without the means to do anything
It's almost like you need a balance of workers and owners to produce value

>>13972860
>source needed
>but just know any source you have is automatically /pol/ (which is badthink)
>therefore, it’s already predetermined to be irrelevant
>checkm8 bigot
intellectual wunderkind

>>13979159
>building
You need workers to build it.
>tables
You need carpenters to make it.
>cooking equipment
You need machine makers to make it.
>food
You need farmers to grow it.
It's like you can't into recursion. Remind me again, where do "owners" come into the equation?

>>13978761
The real issue who you're responding to doesn't seem to get is that the tax avoidance industry is just a big waste of real resources created by a stupidly complex taxation system. All you need is a straight forward form of progressive taxation on personal income and maybe something like a big inheritance tax if you're worried about unearned income. You can regulate away issues around corporate executives finding other ways to enrich themselves on the companies budget.
Taxation simply drains money from the system, it's not as if government spending is constrained by anything but politics today... only private individuals really have budget constraints.
Even in any imaginary lolbertarian system today everyone would be creating their own private tokens and prices would be going totally crazy and no one would be investing... you'd get politics back and measures like outlawing monetary alternatives and forcing everyone to live at the mercy of private gold merchants.

>>13979084
Those taxes shouldn't even exist. Corporate taxation is purely regressive. It just lowers real wages of workers or functions as a flat tax on all shareholders in a very convoluted manner.

>>13979143
The issue is always business practice. If a business is doing public good great, if it isn't it shouldn't even exist. A corporation having the right to exist is a privilege. Perhaps big tech should be broken up if it's creating problems.

>>13975463
> Norway

>>13972668
The elites are mostly Protestant

>>13975329
It's not unethical to put down rabid dogs that harm others in their own insanity, son. So yes, you get the bullet.

>>13978120
God I wish that were me

>>13978289
Now show pre-war too

>>13979344
K

>>13978355
cope

>>13979176
No post them go ahead. Please enlighten me.
I'm just warning you that if you are just going to post something like pic related i'm just going to call you a retard and rightfully so.
But if you have a convincing argument that shows that the entire world's elite is mostly composed of Jews and they all conspire between each other for the same goal, please show.

>>13975329
They don't need to and don't care if it works. They just see that the current economic system needs a drastic and violent change. Why do you think communism has stuck around if all the issues it brings up have been "solved" by capitalism?
Look around and you'll see tons of people living paycheck to paycheck working jobs without dignity in the service industry. And while you may be well enough off that you can justify their failures as purely their own, they will grow more and more resentful, until killing everyone that makes more than 100 grand a year seems like a good idea. Something in the capitalistic system is broken, and until it is fixed communism will keep fucking societies up by encouraging the workers to revolt.

>>13979656
Good post upvoted

>>13979197
I think your sentiment is one that isn't necessarily bad, however I don't think you actually have any grasp on either what is realistically attainable or on the anthropological limitations that human beings as imperfect organisms impose on real manifestations of society.

I agree that big tech should be broken down or at the very least externally regulated so that it does not continue to impinge upon the "rights" of every day citizenry, but to say that the only businesses "allowed" to exist should be ones that are affirmatively providing a public good is to use a truism as justification for corruption in favor of whatever particular faction controls the wheels of power at that time.

>>13979143
It doesn't matter what their overhead is. If we go back to OP's picture, it denounces the fact that corporations pay very little taxes and still never stop crying about it and call it oppression (even though they are the biggest recipients of corporate welfare), but then the massive profits of corporation are completely fine and everybody thinks it's great even when they learn theses profits have been distributed to shareholders in tax heavens.

>>13971310
>i'm tired of wage cucking my life away for the rich, where do i start with marx?
Reading Marx isn't going to stop you from wage cucking it will only help you understand wage cucking.

What is your goal here?

>>13979711
>but to say that the only businesses "allowed" to exist should be ones that are affirmatively providing a public good is to use a truism as justification for corruption in favor of whatever particular faction controls the wheels of power at that time.

I said CORPORATIONS, specifically note that nice big privilege of LIMITED LIABILITY which you don't have. Politicians legislate already to lock real people up on dubious grounds and more but that's a different issue in the whole political process which corporations are above and play a controlling role.

>>13979813
Well that discourse is to be expected but that doesn't change the fact taxes and profits are functionally different today and talking about them as if they were a deduction from aggregate real value in the same fashion is wrong. Profit is a return on investment and presumably can be spent whereas taxes just drains potential spending power. Ya corporations ploughing profits to shareholders to leverage for more asset inflation instead of real investment may not be necessarily the best option for the economy but increasing taxes and promoting deflation may also be a bad option for the economy. Tax heavens exist because the demands there for them as a result of a bad tax system. Libertarian retard logic and Marxist retard logic neither get at the real process of the distribution of aggregate value today because they're stuck thinking in commodity money terms.

>>13978523
>Considering I didn't spent any money to grow the fruits, there is money to be made even at the low price.
There is no surplus VALUE for you to collect because you VALUE the apples more than the money you would get for them. You would become poorer if you sold the apples. You value the money less than the apples. Money is not value, it is something people value and use as a reference point for how much they value other things.

>dollar value of the apple to you: 100
>dollar value of $0.01 to you: $0.01
If you sell the apple for $0.01, your surplus is 0.01-100

If you can't understand the basic idea of a reservation price, and actual price, and taking the difference between them...
You had something more valuable and traded it for something you valued less.You have not generated any wealth for yourself, you made yourself poorer.

>If you want to talk about surplus, you would need to drop the esoteric in-head price and actually compare how much time would I spent getting that commodity to the market, how much money do I need to maintain my lifestyle for that time and how much does the commodity yield.
An "in-head price"/reservation price is not esoteric, it is an extremely simple concept. Value is a subjective characteristic that depends on how the individual feels about the good. People have a subjective value of a good they want to buy and a subjective value of money. How much of their money they would pay for it the good their reservation price. The actual price minus the reservation price is the surplus-value measured in dollars they would get from the transaction.

>Another question would be if acquiring that surplus would be better than funtime with friends. Clearly funtime with friends doesn't produce any money and putting money-value on it will destroy your soul and make the friendship melt away.
You can place a subjective dollar-value on it. If I offered you $5 to skip funtime, you probably won't. If I offer you 1 million, you probably will. Theoretically there would be a dollar amount for which you are indifferent, in which case that would be the dollar-value you place on fun-time. This is actually relevant in measuring GDP because Europeans have low gdp-per-capita and take more leisure than Americans, and economists want to know if it reflects an actual difference in living standards or if they actually could receive just as much income in dollars as americans but choose to take some of their income as lesiure instead of dollars.

>>13979197
Idk, I’m a welder with my own rig, I just go around putting pieces of metal and pipe easy to hard to reach place with an incredibly hot electrical current for 40 to 70$ an hour depending on the job. I never understood this whole labor or Marxist theory, it always seemed like the kind of thing people who don’t do any actual manual labor sit around and think about all day to me

>>13980534
You're two idiots getting in a value debate without understanding what's at stake. The Marxists are supply side, they're about production and objective reproduction costs. Very doom and gloom. The neoliberals are demand side and all about consumption and leisure. Very peachy. You can use subjectivist analysis to justify socialism obviously and objectivst costs as a defence of conservatism. All equally unfalsifiable.
Also GDP doesn't have anything to do with quality of life or anything like that and no one with a brain would claim that... it's just that if the quantity of pecuniary transactions are going down in a capitalist society that's generally a bad sign.

>>13980588
It's about what to expect in the long run.

>>13980676
GDP/capita is very commonly used as a measure of living standards, that doesn't mean it's the most important use of GDP or that it's the best measure of living standards but it is used that way. Not that it matters, the point was that there is a coherent way in this analysis to put a dollar value on the fun you have with your friends (at least theoretically).

>>13980676
>The Marxists are supply side, they're about production and objective reproduction costs. Very doom and gloom. The neoliberals are demand side and all about consumption and leisure.
lol complete nonsense

>>13980768
not much more of a nonsense than the discussion he was reacting to. all 3 should end themselves

>>13980792
present arguments

>>13975138
>If you don't want it, find another job.

How can you be so delusional?

>>13980792
No it's pure nonsense. When people talk about supply side economics they think Reagan and Thatcher they absolutely don't think Marxism.

>>13980997
I said Marx was more supply side not a "supply side economist". When people talk about "supply side economics" they mean ideas like the Laffer Curve (stupid since the federal government doesn't need tax revenue to "fund" its spending). Reagan and Thatcher of course weren't stupid enough to really decrease aggregate spending. Government spending kept going up in the 80s and you had military Keyensian programs like the Strategic Defense Initiative. Most people are fucking stupid and what they think is irrelevant.

>>13980100
>Reading Marx isn't going to stop you from wage cucking it will only help you understand wage cucking.

this is all i want. until i started to actually just hear out marx's ideas, which i was already weary of for some reason, the world suddenly started to make sense to me. if i'm going to be a wage cuck, i want to at least be a self aware wage cuck.

>>13971310
marxism isn't about economics. it's a social theory first and foremost.
personally my favorite and easy to read introductory book is https://archive.org/details/HistoricalMaterialismCornforth

>>13980534
>You would become poorer if you sold the apples.
Nope, I would have more money. It doesn't matter what's going inside my head.

>Money is not value, it is something people value and use as a reference point for how much they value other things.
Nope. It is something to be used for trading. Money is objective and quantifiable, value is subjective and unquantifiable.

>You have not generated any wealth for yourself
I have generated money. If I consumed the apples I would've acquired only nutrition. If I wanted to talk about surplus, I would have to compare the money I gained with nutrition that could be bought for that money.

>An "in-head price"/reservation price is not esoteric, it is an extremely simple concept.
And exteremely pointless concept. Take an individual with a head to which we don't see. Can we ever judge how much of this "surplus" of yours he made? Nope. Hence there can be only one such individual whose "surplus" can be judged and that's assuming he's some kind of soulless machine that quantifies everything in money.

>Theoretically there would be a dollar amount for which you are indifferent, in which case that would be the dollar-value you place on fun-time.
That's wouldn't apply to normal people. Either there would be this jokingly small amount or jokingly large amount. If you ever arrived at a realistic amount that friendship wasn't real and will melt into air. Or if you wanted more explicit and disgusting example, let's say you found your gf bartering with another man for how much would she blow him. If you (assuming you aren't cuck) caught her with indiferent or agreeing stance, your relationship would be over.

>economists want to know if it reflects an actual difference in living standards or if they actually could receive just as much income in dollars as americans but choose to take some of their income as lesiure instead of dollars
Those economists would be genuinly soulless people. I mean you could go ad absurdum and apply it to a hypothetical uncontacted hunter-gather tribe where people are happier than both Yuros and Burgers and proclaim that they have higher "living standard" than us. Such measure of living standard would be absolutely worthless because money won't be able to buy that, what makes these primitive folks happy.

But tbeh I start to feel there is something about that line Marx wrote: "All that is solid melts into air". Your line of reasoning would inevitably lead into one-dimensional perception of world, where everything can be turned into money.

>>13983295
You lose one good that you value (apples) and gain another good you value (money). They are both real things that matter to humans because the human brain generates a subjective value for them based on their characteristics. trade, surplus, and wealth can all exist without money. Apples have more characteristics than just nutrition, especially homegrown ones. And the value you place on nutrition is subjective like everything else.

>Can we ever judge how much of this "surplus" of yours he made?
You can ask people questions, like "how much do you spend on chewing gum, and how much would we have to pay you to give up chewing gum?" And you can empirically verify the answer to measure the surplus in dollars (though not their personal utility or happiness of whatever). And in fact people do this all the time. It's really easy, and when it comes to policy making it's important even if you think it's pointless.

>I mean you could go ad absurdum and apply it to a hypothetical uncontacted hunter-gather tribe where people are happier than both Yuros and Burgers and proclaim that they have higher "living standard" than us.
That's fine, if you found out the average tribesman wouldn't trade his lifestyle away for 10 million dollars that would be a massively interesting empirical finding.

>>13981148
>I said Marx was more supply side not a "supply side economist"
what did he mean by this?

>>13978761
Obviously i didnt make myself clear. I wasn't suggesting that the tactics of the wealthy's accountants are actually illegal (under the legal system which they manipulate and control). I was mocking the self-righteous indignation of the teacher when she was outraged at the use of a phrase that wasnt her chosen euphemism - despite the fact that she had no moral qualms about the actual act of allowing the wealthy to pay lower rates of tax than working people. Like idgaf about the technicalities of the words, that wasnt the point. Maybe the word used was evasion. Who gives a fuck?

The point is that this shit: https://www.businessinsider.com/american-billionaires-paid-less-taxes-than-working-class-wealth-gap-2019-10 is going down and its a
criminal fucking outrage. Just because the wealthy are powerful enough to legalise their crimes does not mitigate the disgusting nature of those crimes.

>every penny that stays in the hands of the people is used for what the people want

lmao 'the people' arent paying high end accounting firms to minimise/evade/avoid tax. They are getting fucked over with actually enforced income tax rates and regressive sales taxes

>>13975285
Based Hayekian

>>13983658
>And the value you place on nutrition is subjective like everything else.
You missed the point. If I trade the nutrition of apples away for money, then there comes a time when I am hungry and I need that nutrition. Will I be able to reproduce more nutrition with the money than was hidden in the apples? If so, I have produced a surplus as I have more than what I started with.

>how much do you spend on chewing gum?
The least I can.
>how much would we have to pay you to give up chewing gum?
The most I can convince you to pay me for it.
Subject will not disclose that to you during haggling, because disclosing it would put subject at a disadvantage. If you were a third party, you have no way of knowing what the subject told is correct or won't be changed at a whim.

>And you can empirically verify the answer to measure the surplus in dollars
You can't empirically verify your definition of "surplus", because one component is purely hypothetical. It also can only exist at the time of transaction, the buyer can re-evaluate during consumption of the commodity (aka the part that actually matters to him), meaning that the money-value he put on that during transaction can differ from how much does he actually value the commodity; making deception a legitimate component of value and that surplus would be rather social interaction between buyer and seller than the relation between consumer and the commodity.

>if you found out the average tribesman wouldn't trade his lifestyle away for 10 million dollars that would be a massively interesting empirical finding.
Sentinelese? Uncontacted tribes don't have a clue what dollar is or what one can buy for it.

>>13971310
>falling for a meme ideology because you don't want to work

>>13984700
Learn to read. OP is failing for marxism. That's the most work-worshipping ideology there is.

>>13983658
Basically no one's dealing in "utility" without reference to price, that's just a special case not generally relevant. You want a surplus to emerge in exchange and redistribution of goods and also want to believe money has a diminishing utility which would be problematic for justifying capitalist relations.

>>13971310
>implying that the worker spends the surplus value in a way that would generate more capital (which has been proven to be far more beneficial for the average person than the redistribution of wealth) than if the greedy capitalist spent it
>implying that the worker doesn't benefit from the surplus value taken by the greedy capitalist
>implying that we should tear apart the current economic system in favour of one that through its policies has killed over 200 million people

you're a dumbass and it shows. take an economics class

>>13985036
>implying that the worker spends the surplus value in a way that would generate more capital
Why should production of capital for the sake of capital be the ultimate goal of mankind? What about providing comfortable living for the citizens, building great works or fighting, for fighting for power or freedom?

>>13985036
The clearest sign that someone has not studied economics at university is when they tell others to take an economics class. Protip: Microeconomics does nothing to prove or disprove Marxism

>>13972705
stop posting please

>>13972618
>Its basically ludic play.
brainlet

>>13985036
Surplus value is more than just unpaid labor. In general, Marxism is not only about exploitation, but the possibility for each to dispose of their time as they will, without having to wage-slave, and also the freedom of association for workers, which exist today, but is not efficient, because production in a mode of production centered around exploitation is more efficient than production centered around free workers, working together and sharing the production.
I've come to the realization that production based on the exploitation of workers is more efficient than production based on freedom of association. That doesn't mean exploitation is better for the happiness of everybody, mostly because of alienation. What good is a better output for, if you are alienated?

>>13985036
There is no point in massive capital accumulation if you are not in a constant competitive environment nationally and internationally. In a cooperative environment productivity and efficiency can be lowered to allow more free time and resources for the workers to enjoy their time. Progress is slowed down but what is the point of progress if you sacrifice millions in it's name.
Today only a portion of the world population benefit from progress while many others don't.
Also 200 million? source?

>>13978761
>the special interests that control government
Maybe we should start taking heaps of money away from these entities.

Bros, I work packing shitty dirtbike merch in a warehouse 50 hours a week. I move hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of plastic shit that will end up in the trash, but my cut of the pie is barely paying for my rent and bills. I'm fucked if I have a medical or life emergency because I don't make enough to save. Something isn't adding up. Why the fuck were baby boomers able to buy a house, car, college, and support a family on a single working parent? This fucking shit ain't logical are capitalists supposed to tell me it's fair for me to pay arbitrarily higher prices, spend more of my life working for things our grandparents got for pennies on dollars today??

>>13979813
The reason why the question of overhead matters is that $11bn in profits to a company with $2.5 trillion in liability (wages, tax liability on their property, tax liability on their payroll (both of which Amazon etc do pay, the headline is just about corporate income tax), liability insurance on their merchandise etc.) is very different than $11bn in profits to a company with $5bn in liabilities. One of the main rightoffs that corporations take advantage of is that in many cases you can deduct a certain portion of your tax liability in other areas from your businesses income liability (so when Amazon pays payroll and property taxes to the states in which their warehouses operate, it is allowed to be deducted from the tax they pay for their net profits).

This isn't excusing them for largely getting away with gaming certain aspects of the tax system in their favor, but it is at least acknowledging the basic reality that there is quite a lot of risk involved in the operation of a 21st century techno-capitalist monstrosity, and that it isn't quite as simple as them paying literally $0 in total taxes because that's pretty much guaranteed to not be the case.

>>13987013
>This fucking shit ain't logical are capitalists supposed to tell me it's fair for me to pay arbitrarily higher prices, spend more of my life working for things our grandparents got for pennies on dollars today??
No, they'll tell you that you can save money and start your own business. Yes i know it's a joke, but that's what they'll tell you.