Karl Marx: chair aficionado

For Marx, labor, work, making stuff, and all the related concepts which express themselves in a workshop-type envionment - or any place where people work and actually do something - is a central category of human existence, to the point that he ignores or de-emphasizes other things (gender, race, sexuality, etc) which are later emphasized by other leftists. When you /build/ something, make something, etc, you are expressing yourself in reality. Crudely, when you're really good at it, it's almost like a form of self-actualization in the sense that you can influence the world in exactly the ways that you would like - at least, in a context of making stuff, or performing work that is important to you. In this somewhat squishy version of it that I've suggested, IIRC he was influenced by Hegel and then made a point of reading the world in his own way (in light of the still-ongoing IR), which entailed the above, and he always stuck with it.

Adding to this, if you make a complete chair, say, from start to finish, then it is reasonable to say that you have a better understanding of that one chair you've made then if you're just steps M and N in some assembly line process. Ironically, once work is "communalized" in the sense that many different people do various disparate steps, for Marx this is alienated labor, which is supposed to be detestable. And yet if one has made himself something, and he therefore has a better understanding and appreciation of his own work as a consequence, /and cares for it more dearly/, then this is a clear illustration of the goodness and incentivizing factors of /owning private property/ in a society, which of course undermines the remainder of the Marxian project. I am now wondering if Marx saw this (he must have, he's not dumb) and addressed this contradiction somewhere in his writings (I would imagine that he would typically reject xyz comparisons whcih are in fact legitimate, by pretending that they're of different types).

>but you can't assess how much a chair with 2 legs is worth compared to a chair with 3 legs.
But you can. It's a little more than your earnings. If it wasn't, then you wouldn't have a job.

You take the total labor expenses of your employer per [time unit]
You then add to that his profits per [time unit]
You then subtract the value of the wood use in [time unit]
You then divide that by the number of chairs made in [time unit]
You have the increase in value per chair.

To determine the approximate amount of value you add, you multiply the amount of chairs you contribute to per hour by the increase in value from wood to chair.

To see how much the employer is charging you for job security, no risk, and increased productivity,
Simply subtract your wages per [time unit] from the amount of chairs you contribute to per [time unit] multiplied by the increase in value from wood to chair.

Sounds like marx either was shit at logic and/or math and/or economics.

>The value of your labor is not the relative value of the chair before and after you work on it, but what your wage is.
Actually the value of your labor is the relative value of the chair before and after you work on it...
Your wages just aren't the value of your labor. Your wages are the value of your labor minus the employers cut.
The employer gets the cut because he offers you job security, no risk, and increased productivity.
If he didn't you would have no incentive to just work for yourself. The same would happen if the cut he takes is too large (relative the the increase in productivity (a petroleum engineer would produce comparatively nothing if he worked alone)).

>The worker does not see his labor as a comprehensible amount of value by turning a basic raw material commodity, wood, into the final product, a sellable chair.
They can if they know math...

>In this way, the capitalists obfuscates the true value of labor
I wouldn't call a basic kindergarten math problem obfuscation...
CONT.

>and takes credit for the new value of the final sellable product.
He only takes credit for the increased productivity and job security.
And in exchange for that and taking the risk he gets the difference between the value of your labor and your wages.

The difference must be less than value of your increased productivity and/or greater than the value of job security.
If it wasn't you would have no incentive to be employed.

tl;dr
Employers manage labor so as to be more efficient. Increased efficiency means more value is produced in [time unit] which nets you increased wages compared to working alone.

Wew lad, all that and the only perceivable mention of property/capital was "risk".
Get fucked commies. Capitalism works even without capital.

>haven't worked a single day in your life
>write a book about working

>can only come about by a human working on it.
rekt

Large scale and increased efficiency rekt

He wanted to see himself in the chair OP what is so difficult to understand? He looked at it, examined it, turned it upside down but instead of Marx all he saw was a chair, so that means there must be something wrong with human society and history, I mean, that's the logical conclusion anyone would have thought.

This is actually a really excellent post.
>(I would imagine that he would typically reject xyz comparisons whcih are in fact legitimate, by pretending that they're of different types).
I think he'd recognize the value of the comparison, Marx wasn't all 'ebil capitalism' all the time. He certainly preferred it to the stuff that came beforehand.

But he'd point out the inherit antagonism. This is one of the other key things about Marx's worldview: his materialism eliminates the ability to talk about property and property rights 'as such', a discreet non-temporal law. There's only property as a social practice, which is that owning private property, and owning private means of production, eventually alienates the worker from his labor. For Marx, there isn't an argument between the virtues of socialism and capitalism in the realm of platonic ideas to choose freely between. There is a historic process, a historic conflict, that's going to play itself out whether we like it or not.

>And yet if one has made himself something, and he therefore has a better understanding and appreciation of his own work as a consequence, /and cares for it more dearly/
Then why not ban trade and jobs and make everyone do everything for themselves.
Surely that would be better and totally not fuck up things worse than communism...

>(I would imagine that he would typically reject xyz comparisons which are in fact legitimate, by pretending that they're of different types).
Yep.

It is clear from reading my post that I am not insisting that everyone must or should make everything for themselves. On the contrary, I have simply observed that when one performs one's own labor, to derive one's own product, whatever that is, then one has a greater degree of care for it, acceptance of it, etc. "You're closer to it", as we'd say these days. Your understand your own personal business, your own hobby as it might be, etc.

This remains true even if we (and I for example am) are perfectly happy to outsource the production of untold consumer goods to factories. Keeping it dumb-simple, I own a set of wooden boxes that I designed and built myself, to fit my exact needs. which I'm rather proud of --- for example. Previously I was simply characterizing Marx's view of alienated labor, and then pushing back with my own conventional personal view on why people like to have private property (and identifying what I think is an irony in the Marxian project): when it's yours when you have authorship, ownership, sweat/time equity, you care about it more, and are more careful with it, especially if it's important to you. And it's exactly this fact whose loss Marx on the one hand laments (alienated labor), and on the other hand later demands (the same loss) as a prerequisite of Utopia (abolition of private property).

I am no expert on Marx, and so I welcome the above user (You) to elaborate on the "Yep", since it goes directly to my wondering. Where does Marx recognize this contradiction of his own, as I've sketched it?

>I am no expert on Marx, and so I welcome the above user (You) to elaborate on the "Yep", since it goes directly to my wondering. Where does Marx recognize this contradiction of his own, as I've sketched it?
Sorry, I meant that I would also imagine that.
It's a bit late for em.

>job security
>boss fires you
>company keeps going
It's the fact that he has the capital to own means of production with economies of scale and you don't.

>Employers manage labor so as to be more efficient
Management is different than ownership. Management is still a form of labor, which is why they're paid salaries by owners. Even CEOs are hired and paid by a board.

>It's the fact that he has the capital to own means of production with economies of scale and you don't.
He can take a loss for longer than you can go without getting money.
Which means you are better off as an employee than a solo source of labor.

You have security in the sense that you are more insulated from inconsistent profit and market fluctuations than you would otherwise be.

I appreciate the compliment. I'm not getting your post all right now but one thing sticks out at me. I would like to play nice and be a polite "grammar" (spelling) nazi just now, since this is a subtle one.

There are two words. "Discreet" meaning quiet, clandestine, under-the-table, secret. "Mary gave Jim a discreet blow-job at the back of the theater."

"Discrete", on the other hand, is sort of stacatto, the opposite of continuous. things are in their separate boxes, clearly marked-off from each other, distinct, not overlapping. This thing is different from that: "The squares on the chessboard formed a clear, discrete visual display."

The words, spellings, pronounciations and even their possibilities of use are all so closely related that they are regularly mixed up, sometimes even preserving essential meaning. However, they are distinct. I think that you probably meant "discrete" instead, but I know what a conversational turn-off it is to segue into this type of thing but we're quasi-anonymous so there's no harm done, no egos bruised, no personal autism power levels truly revealed.

>but I know what a conversational turn-off it is to segue into this type of thing but we're quasi-anonymous so there's no harm done
Not that user, but I liked it.
I had no idea they were different.

>no egos bruised
... kek, I read it as eggs.

Oh cheers, appreciate the clarification then.

It has even formed the basis of a Futurama joke or two. But discreet/discrete is one that people really honestly mess up and simple aren't aware of, so I like to politely let people know when I can and be a white knight mansplaining faggot that way. Because I know that certain people on here will actually care and really learn as a resul.

there is a branch of math called "discrete math" which is concerned with logic, one and zeroes (hence the futurama pun), finitely many steps, etc. Tic tac toe, checkers, chess are all discrete math problems, not involving the continuum of calculus, as a simple example. Obviously, discrete math is important to computer science.

>Management is different than ownership. Management is still a form of labor, which is why they're paid salaries by owners. Even CEOs are hired and paid by a board.
A petroleum/chemical engineer can't refine oil effectively alone with a lab table refinery.
Sure, it's possible for him to do so, but he would have to be retarded to want to do so.
Engineers aren't retards.

If he works with other petro/chem eng then they can be more productive.

Also stockholders are management, they decide the management.

>A petroleum/chemical engineer can't refine oil effectively alone with a lab table refinery.
>Sure, it's possible for him to do so, but he would have to be retarded to want to do so.
>Engineers aren't retards.
>If he works with other petro/chem eng then they can be more productive.
What does that have to do with anything? That's a total non-sequitur. It would probably blow your mind to know there are firms where the shareholders are the employees, and the employees collectively hire upper management rather than the other way around. This incorporates risk collectivization, economies of scale, and skilled management, all the things you claim are advantages of wage-labor and working for a company. They in fact offer increased job security over privately owned firms, which was your biggest argument.

>Also stockholders are management, they decide the management.
But stockholder's profits are determined by their investment and ownership, rather than their labor contribution to the productivity of the firm. Shareholders rarely actually exercise voting rights beyond vote with your dollar and the buying and selling of shares.

These posts are getting into something interesting, where it would be useful to have more business-oriented people around to comment on the matter.

Obviously, whoever is running a given business, whether simply "managers" or "ownership" are going to try to get the most out of their employees. It may happen that a business owner (say, a small business owner for example) is closely involved with management, say, to the point of daily operations. So in the smaller scale (ironically in the simpler, easier-to-understand instance), the owner-manager is yet wearing the two hats: enjoying the legal and money ownership of the business, and actually running the business at the same time, in the example.

OTOH the later poster de-emphasizes the /literal/ ownership which stockholders really do have, in both the financial and legal senses, of a given company, in favor of their /management/ role: voting periodically, voting a CEO in or out, say, that type of thing. Which of course is a form of management, although more abstractly conducted in this case by a "group of owners", it's a corporate version of the above simpler small business example, writ large, in a board room somewhere. I have appreciated that the later user did NOT say that stockholders don't own the business, he simply correctly pointed out the (more abstract, but yes, terribly important) management role of same.

Tangent of a tangent: who is managing whom? The CEO, say, has to regularly report profit, or otherwise sell a certain operational narrative to the Board/shareholders/etc. Or in the example of the State, an elite may collude with a Press to influence public opinion, say. Either way, we have this modern accepted notion of a Public Opinion.

Last word: my understanding is that CEOs are commonly given significant stock options as part of their packages. That is, they are given a degree of literal ownership, thus incentivizing them to own/grow same.

>It would probably blow your mind to know there are firms where the shareholders are the employees, and the employees collectively hire upper management rather than the other way around.
Hue hue hue.
I'm trying to find that episode of stossel that had either a tree nigger or puerto rican on the show to talk about that.

Can you help me out lad?

Labor gets compensated for their labor contribution. Capitalists get paid on the basis of their capital contribution. That is, they get paid more than the nominal labor they contributed.

>my understanding is that CEOs are commonly given significant stock options as part of their packages.
They are now, but it's not a requirement.

A very simple way to understand this is a hedge fund. The only labor you do is picking a hedge fund. It does not matter if you have millions or thousands. You can do the same amount of research, but the returns are not based on your labor. Now the hedge fund gets a cut of the returns, which is compensation for their labor. That represents the market rate for the labor of investment. As the sum they must invest increases, so does the labor in diversification and exploring an increasing number of potential smaller investments. The investor gets their share of the returns based on the amount of their capital investment, in other words, their returns are based on the amount of ownership, of the collective investments of the hedge fund, not the labor of selecting the hedge fund. The labor of picking a hedge fund does not add meaningful labor. The returns are based on the amount of capital investment.

Alienation is literally the only thing I agree with Marx on.

It really is soul-crushing to work in a factory for some soulless profit-maximizer who doesn't care about your life, he just wants you to put one screw into the same part, for hundreds of hours a year.

that person is free to quit at any time and pursue their interests, a person assigned a factory to work at for the good of the people isn't

>some meme about how marxism is freedom but capitalism isn't because you have to make sure you don't die from incompetence.
Ha, got 'em!

Why are bluepilled wagecucks so insecure about workers owning the means of production that they have to resort to central planning dystopia strawmen?

Because marxism is shit if you have any shred of ambition in life.

I never said a person wasn't free to leave, but there's no reason for a workplace to be a soul-wrenching shithole just because people can leave.

Market socialism is a thing, it allows for entrepreneurs and the ability to get rich. Contrary to what capitalists will tell you, socialism is not about the redistribution of income, welfare states or centrally planned economies. That's just one way to go about it.

>It really is soul-crushing to work in a factory
>a workplace is a soul-wrenching shithole

And how does socialism work without stealing money form people who were successful to subsidize failure?
(genuine question)

Because if it is funded with voluntary contributions, that's called charity and is completely different.

I'd imagine Marx would prefer to see an end to the idea of mindless labour in its entirety.

It's not really all that hard to grasp if you look at it from a 19th century context, which was only just seeing the final death throws of artisan production in favour of factory production. Proudhon writes pretty extensively about how the automation of labour was basically a means to strip workers of control over their labour, dehumanize them, and make them easily replaceable, and does some from a similar mindset at a time period earlier in this process.

It's now only unfathomable to so many because we're at a point where artisan labour has basically been destroyed, except among niche shit that only rich people can afford.

>that person is free to quit at any time and pursue their interests
Fucking lel. Do you seriously think people just work in sweatshops because they enjoy it or something?

Yes. They have the job because it is preferable to the alternative.

Well it is, which is why everyone painstakingly takes upon themselves tens of thousands of dollars in debt so they can be educated enough to avoid working there.

That's not the same as doing something because you enjoy it, and you know it. It does mean on some level that they want to do it (at least they want to do it more than they want the alternative), but it's certainly not something they'd actually like to be doing.

Are you without human empathy or something?

>They're totally free to just not work there and starve if they want, this is the kind of freedom that makes Capitalism so great

>the only job is sewing

Yes, I'm sure there are so many career prospects for sweatshop workers, and so many opportunities to move up in their station. Why if they work hard enough, they might someday be CEOs!

For most of them it probably is.

>third world shit
>life made worse with a job
wew lad...

There is always prostitution and/or begging, and farming.
I don't get why people want to limit their options by opposing third world labor.

the workers "control" the means of production and the council of the Proletariat own the workers and tell the workers that nobody owns anything while exercising their ownership over them by assigning their management and production, the scam at the core of Marxism is the lie that ownership can not exist

>the scam at the core of Marxism is the lie that ownership can not exist
>your wife
>my son
What's the big deal, it's not like she is yours and he is mine or anything...
What do you mean don't talk to you or my son ever again?

>There is always prostitution and/or begging, and farming.
Damn, ain't Capitalism just great!

It's not that difficult.

Attempting to stay as close to the current capitalist system as possible:

Nationalize the banks, which we actually came fairly close to during the financial crisis. Bank profits are essentially treated as tax revenue. You can even have multiple banks stay in place if you want. Either through appointments or votes, with an oversight congressional committee and increased transparency. These people become the board, they appoint a CEO to manage the company. This solves a major conflict of interest, banks aren't seeking to be bailed out, or to screw over citizens, since they're liable to citizens. Their performance metric, and their compensation rates are not necessarily based on the profits they generate, but either economic growth or prosperity. This essentially socializes the finance industry, the major supplier of capital.

Then you put regulations on private investment and ownership. Individuals may be able to invest, say, up to $1,000,000 in a private business including their own, and qualify as a small business, not worth regulating, and minimal impact on distorting the markets. Interest rates are set to incentivize entrepreneurship, and mostly to cover bureaucracy and risk management. If you fuck up, it hurts your credit score, and you get debt. This debt doesn't actually have to be the amount owed, since if you ruined someone's life they'd file for bankruptcy and renegotiate the debt in the current system anyways. The ideal point is to make the debt manageable, but also bad enough that people would be averse to failure.

>This solves a major conflict of interest, banks aren't seeking to be bailed out, or to screw over citizens, since they're liable to citizens.
But user, they already are liable to their customers.
And being the government would cause more bailouts, because the banks would be backed by the full faith and credit of the US government... (as in completely)

>Then you put regulations on private investment and ownership.
Sounds like commie shit, I don't like it.

The federal reserve is already shit, why would you ever want to make every bank the federal reserve?

This nation is also mine as it is all other citizen's. Ownership exists in degrees. Marxists can't wrap their heads around it. Everyone has a share in something even if it's small. If you buy stock in a company you own a portion of it. You invest a portion of your life to create a family you have an amount of ownership of it represented in social status.

Larger businesses may have to undergo a process similar to going public. If people think it's important that a person not be able to be replaced for any reason, they can institute legal rights, and outline when a person can be ousted from a business. Employees are probably entitled to some formal say in how the company is operated rather than only through union negotiations, if there even is a union. The major point is people who screw over society, or their own employees, like say, the people running the big banks, can be outed through democratic processes or representation, the same way a board of a public company can oust a CEO. The difference is they're accountable to the society.

Basically, screwing over everyone else to make your profits is a crime punishable by seizure of your assets. You take pharma bro for example, people start a petition for a referendum. People vote him out. He loses his position as CEO, he loses his shares, and the courts determine ill gained income to be seized. If you're worried about tyranny of the majority, you can place whatever checks and balances or insulation from direct democracy you want.

The point of all this is so that compensation is closer to how much you contribute to society, which can be quite a bit if you are a very skilled and talented person in a position to make a lot of difference. It prevents people from getting rich from screwing over society and predatory practices because they can be removed by those people they're trying to screw over. They won't be able to hide behind property rights to justify their incomes.

Will there be corruption? Probably, but it would probably be better for your average citizen than the current system. It's not exactly socialist utopia either. It's just an example of making capitalist structures more socialist.

>But user, they already are liable to their customers.
They're only liable to customers and investors, rather than society as a whole. Being liable to society as a whole helps account of the cost of negative externalities incurred.

>And being the government would cause more bailouts
It happened anyways, so it's basically a nonargument at this point. As it is, private banks get to keep profits, but get bailed out when they screw up. If you had a government willing to let banks fail, that would be one thing, but if they're going to bail them out, then the profits should go to the government.

>Sounds like commie shit, I don't like it.
I didn't ask you to like it. Yes it is commie shit. The question was about a hypothetical socialist system. So why should it surprise you that it's commie shit?

>The federal reserve is already shit, why would you ever want to make every bank the federal reserve?
Because the current system is worse. Technically a bail out in this system isn't even really a government a bail out. The bank is owned by the citizenry. The citizenry is taking collective responsibility for the failures of the banks they own or control by bailing them out with tax dollars. The citizenry also profits from the success of the banks they own or control. The taxes to bail out the banks is really just the taxpayers taking losses when their business fails. On the other hand when the business succeeds, they make profits because it's essentially tax revenue.

>The major point is people who screw over society, or their own employees, like say, the people running the big banks, can be outed through democratic processes or representation,
That bank is shit, I don't want to use it... Well fuck looks like voting with dollars is illegal and I have to convince everyone else that the bank is shit if I want any resemblance of freedom...

It's like you want bitcoin to become big or something.

>You take pharma bro for example, people start a petition for a referendum. People vote him out. He loses his position as CEO, he loses his shares, and the courts determine ill gained income to be seized.
>If you're worried about tyranny of the majority, you can place whatever checks and balances or insulation from direct democracy you want.
Like stopping it from happening at all by not doing this...
I would much rather vote with my dollars than have a single vote no matter how hard I work or how well I do in life. If I fail, I fail.

>They won't be able to hide behind property rights to justify their incomes.
But property rights are good.

>Probably, but it would probably be better for your average citizen than the current system.
I don't care about that because I have ambition to be better off than average.

>It's not exactly socialist utopia either.
It sounds just as bad to me.

>tl;dr
I would hate this shit because it sounds like garbage with all the negatives of socialism and none of the good of capitalism.
With capitalism there is potentially infinite benefit, but with everything else there is only finite benefit.
I would much rather have the chance to earn the world and die and live poor than to be forced into mediocrity no matter what I do.

>not factory work
>requiring tens of thousands of dollars in education
Or you know... manual labor, service industry, prostitution, construction trades, welding, fabricating, drafting, etc...
At worst you're looking at a few months and a thousand or three.

>reading comprehension

>Well it is, which is why everyone painstakingly takes upon themselves tens of thousands of dollars in debt so they can be educated enough to avoid working there.

>factory work is soul crushing work
>people spend tens of thousands of dollars to allegedly avoid doing that work
I think you missed my point.

People spend a little time and a couple hundred bucks to avoid factory work.
People spend a lot of time and tens of thousands of dollars to do much better than the people who only spent a little time and money.

Yeah but my point is that people spend thousands of dollars to avoid any kind of menial laboring at all.

The factory is just one of the kinds of alienating work that I mentioned because I have experience with it.

>That bank is shit, I don't want to use it... Well fuck looks like voting with dollars is illegal and I have to convince everyone else that the bank is shit if I want any resemblance of freedom...
You can still seek private investors with contributions of up to $1,000,000 from each. But no, you're not going to get that angel investor that's going to drop $10,000,000 on a single start-up.

>Like stopping it from happening at all by not doing this...
Pharma bro happened under the current system. How does not doing this stop it?

>I would much rather vote with my dollars than have a single vote no matter how hard I work or how well I do in life. If I fail, I fail.
Voting with your dollars has no effect except encouraging him to do it.

>But property rights are good.
Your property can already be seized under the law. This is just an extension of it.

>I don't care about that because I have ambition to be better off than average.
You can still get filthy rich. You just can't do it by ripping everyone else off. You do it be being productive, and being Steve Jobs and having the average citizen love you want want to suck your dick for an iphone.

>It sounds just as bad to me.
Of course it does.

>I would hate this shit because it sounds like garbage with all the negatives of socialism and none of the good of capitalism.
You haven't actually said anything except you don't like it. It's just market capitalism with social accountability, and forces people to work for high incomes, not just make high incomes from capital investments.

>With capitalism there is potentially infinite benefit, but with everything else there is only finite benefit.
What.

>I would much rather have the chance to earn the world and die and live poor than to be forced into mediocrity no matter what I do.
It's like you're not even reading. There's almost no redistribution going on in the system, and nothing forcing you to be mediocre. This sounds like a canned argument against welfare

cont.

The only redistribution going on is the transfer of bank profits from private hands to public hands. Since money is fungible, that means they can meet budgets and lower taxes, meaning more money in private hands. It's basically like the bank paying your taxes.

The second redistribution, if you can even call it that, is ousting someone from their business if they basically cause negative externalities. Negative externalities are bad and a market distortion and bad for economic growth. A stronger economy means more opportunities for you to get rich.

>Pharma bro happened under the current system. How does not doing this stop it?
I meant the tyranny of the majority.
I'm cool with it when they have the money to back up their tryranny, but when their free vote is more important than my money no matter how much money I am willing to give/spend, then I have problem.

>Voting with your dollars has no effect except encouraging him to do it.
You can vote with your dollars by not purchasing a product.

>Your property can already be seized under the law. This is just an extension of it.
two wrongs.png

All this system will do is drive my money into a foreign bank and for no one to ever base a company in the united states ever again.

>I meant the tyranny of the majority.
Okay, you hate democracy, I get it. You're probably an anarcho-monarchist.

>You can vote with your dollars by not purchasing a product.
Have you even taken econ 101 to understand monopolies and elasticity? Even lolberts think negative externalities and monopolies are bad.

>two wrongs.png
It's basically a less ridiculous version of NAP. You as an individual don't get to decide if NAP was violated. Society has to decide if NAP was violated. And instead of using a tactical nuke on them, they just get ousted.

>All this system will do is drive my money into a foreign bank and for no one to ever base a company in the united states ever again.
American private capital is already in 3rd world banks. If anything, the fact that the bank is a nationalized bank keeps capital in the country.

>Okay, you hate democracy, I get it. You're probably an anarcho-monarchist.
Naw bruh, republican libertarian.

>Have you even taken econ 101 to understand monopolies and elasticity?
yes.

>Even lolberts think negative externalities and monopolies are bad.
you say that... but don't lump all of us together.

>It's basically a less ridiculous version of NAP.
NAP being non-aggression principal? If so, I don't understand even how.

>American private capital is already in 3rd world banks. If anything, the fact that the bank is a nationalized bank keeps capital in the country.
>2012
>not 'buying' ;) a product from a legally distinct foreign entity for exactly how much you want to put into a foreign bank and then 'selling' ;) a product for that amount later.

Also do you have a solution for the problem of no company (above the magic 1 milion mark mentioned) ever forming in america again?
At least we won't have to worry about staying competitive if we give up...

>yes.
No clearly you haven't if you think you can vote with your dollar for everything.

>NAP being non-aggression principal? If so, I don't understand even how.
Do you understand how NAP applies to aggression, when NAP is violated?

>Also do you have a solution for the problem of no company (above the magic 1 milion mark mentioned) ever forming in america again?
I said no single person's personal investment may be greater than $1,000,000 and there would be some upper limit when the firm must go public or face an increased amount of public accountability. Do you even understand how shareholding works in the real world? A company may be worth billions with lots of investors, many of which have significantly lower than $1,000,000 worth of shares.

>At least we won't have to worry about staying competitive if we give up...
You've just been throwing out nonarguments showing your lack of comprehension.

it's bait, but humans designed and built those machines. their labor power is transferred to them.

But who'se labor is it?
The inventor or the mindless shit putting plastic parts together?

I know the answer, congrats on killing human growth.

it's the labor of the worker, but the labor-power of the capitalist, because he purchased it.

But how does marxism permit the capitalist to be paid for it?
How does marxism not result in the complete shutdown of all technological progress?

>©apitalism
>efficiency

>commie faggots
>inefficiency

>posting venezuela as an example of communism
It's not gommunism if they have not nationalized anything, they still have private industries and businesses everywhere as exemplified by your pic itself.
It's just that they are FULL RETARD right now and are trying to control prices with an ironfist, wich obviously doesnt work.

>all those foreign company logos

Nestle's totally communist dood

>socialism
>communism
>any meaningful difference in the real world
Wew lad

Venezuela isn't socialist.
But even ignoring that, your post makes no sense.

>Venezuela isn't socialist.
;)

Great argument.

>Venezuela isn't socialist
*tips ushanka*