Why do some people hate hm?

50%? damn. How?

Money which was originally gotten from workers making everything and customers paying for that.

So I repeat, what do you do?

High rent I assume.

>Money which was originally gotten from workers

No, user, that money could could have been acquired in ways that are different from that. Even if it was acquired that specific way in this instance, it means it came through other means previously.

Money can be required in many ways I understand. But money only has any use as long as workers and customers (i.e the proletariat) uphold the economy.

Things like stocks and loans are no more removed from this. Fundamentally they're still dependent on this both from the labour of the proletariat themselves and the profits accrued from that labour by the bourgeoisie.

I suppose if you managed to gamble your way into getting enough money to start a business this may be different. But a system where you can only privately own the means of production if you won enough money to pay for it through gambling would be an absolutely retarded system.

*can be acquired

Get a better job you bum. Buy the building.

Maybe you should have paid more attention at school instead of drawing dicks on your pencil case.

>Get a better job you bum. Buy the building.
I have a better solution.

A final solution to the capitalist problem if you will.

Communists think all private ownership of the means of production is bad and treat the goodly entrepreneur like the corrupt plutocrat.

Yeah, because the """goodly""" entrepreneur is still taking my surplus value.

And I have a final solution to pinko shits trying to destroy our society.

Then why do you work there? Find yourself that one magical workplace where you get 100% of your labours value to yourself. Oh wait, it doesn't exist outside of your utopistic pipedreams.

There is nothing more pathetic than a classcuck.

>But money only has any use as long as workers and customers (i.e the proletariat) uphold the economy.

Yes, and? You still need money to start a business, the capitalist puts that money on the table.
Common people can do the same, it's called a coop.

Surplus value is nonsense. You can't get any decent theory of prices out of the LTV so he's not actually "stealing" anything.

Because capitalism has consumed the planet.

> Find yourself that one magical workplace where you get 100% of your labours value to yourself.
I don't understand why class-traitors think that workers getting paid 100% of their value is so unachievable.
I mean, the bourgeoisie already gets paid 100% of the proletariats value. It s clearly possible.

>le capitalism is meritocratic meme
99% chance that fucker has inherited a lot of capital and his family has been rich since forever

Yeah, I know. That why you'd end up in a shallow grave with a hole through your skull.

Yeah, it's possible when you destroy all possible motivation for people to start companies and instead give absolute power to the State, as if the politicians in charge were somehow infallibble and different from the people you call the bourgeoisie.

And why didn't your ancestors get rich and allow you to inherit wealth? Because they were inferior, that's why.

>Yes, and? You still need money to start a business, the capitalist puts that money on the table.
Yes I understand that and we've just been over why that money still ultimately came from the workers.

>Surplus value is nonsense. You can't get any decent theory of prices out of the LTV so he's not actually "stealing" anything.
You've just revealed that you haven't actually read any Marxian economics because Marx's LTV isn't a theory of price.

Not to mention that surplus value is completely self-explanatory. I make the thing and get paid a wage, the customer buys the thing for a price, my boss makes a profit. Clearly there is a discrepancy between the wage and the price which is what allows for profit.

>Not to mention that surplus value is completely self-explanatory. I make the thing and get paid a wage, the customer buys the thing for a price, my boss makes a profit. Clearly there is a discrepancy between the wage and the price which is what allows for profit.
If you don't like this, why don't you make a profit on your own, outside of the company? Surely there's nothing stopping you from doing it. Why not start your own company?

>why don't sweatshop workers just become millionaires like um do they like being poor or something? baka

>Yeah, I know. That why you'd end up in a shallow grave with a hole through your skull.
Just a bit rude.

>Yeah, it's possible when you destroy all possible motivation for people to start companies and instead give absolute power to the State,

>State control of the means of production = worker control of the means of production
Something is amiss here.

Oh, so did the bourgeoisie just "become millionaires" once they decided they don't want to be poor? Did their companies pop out of the womb with them, along with the means of production?

>Why not start your own company?
Because I don't have any ambitions of starting a company as being a bourgie just doesn't look very appealing compared to other possible careers.

Not to mention this wouldn't solve anything, every other prole would still be having the problems outlined. It would just negate the problem in my specific case.

>Just a bit rude.
Not my fault you're trying to destroy what I value. We are clearly so ideologically opposed that the most viable solution would clearly be violence, preferably in the form of a firing line with you as the target.

>Something is amiss here.
Show me one single example of workers actually controlling the means of production.
Show me one single example of communism being attempted without state socialism.
Tell me how exactly would companies form in a communistic society where nobody has any motivation for forming those companies as there is no notable benefit in it as there would be in a capitalistic society. Tell me how those people who are now bourgeoisie would simply not seek power through political means instead?

> Did their companies pop out of the womb with them, along with the means of production?
They may as well have considering most billionaires were born rich.

>Because I don't have any ambitions of starting a company as being a bourgie just doesn't look very appealing compared to other possible careers.
Oh wow, really scrambles my noggins, that does. So you whine about these people having wealth and power beyond what you have and justify it with "don't wanna".
Fine by me if you want to usurp their wealth by force, but don't pretend you're doing it for some kind of higher cause.

>Yes I understand that and we've just been over why that money still ultimately came from the workers.

No, you didn't explain shit. You can establish a business with money you saved over the years.

>You've just revealed that you haven't actually read any Marxian economics because Marx's LTV isn't a theory of price.

You're just revealed yourself to be unable to read and a liar.
First of all, marxists have tried for decades to extrapolate a theory of prices from the LTV, They couldn't.
Second, I didn't say it's a theory of prices. I said that since you can't get a theory of prices out of it, nobody is actually stealing from you any value that makes any sort of material sense.

>Clearly there is a discrepancy between the wage and the price which is what allows for profit

It's called "not actually building the entire thing and/or using machines that costed money in the first place".

Oh, so the people who originally gained that wealth were born with it as well? Just popped out of the womb with a couple billions worth in gold or something?

>literally every hedonistic need met in a globalized economy that can produce goods on slave wages
>hurr why don't you compete with fucking Pepsi user?

Because you come from a long line of unambitious losers who through history failed to make either a name or wealth for themselves, leading to you in the present time complaining about how others and their ancestry are better than you and yours. Such is life.

>Not my fault you're trying to destroy what I value. We are clearly so ideologically opposed that the most viable solution would clearly be violence, preferably in the form of a firing line with you as the target.
The thing about this is there's no point getting mad and graphically describing how you'd like right wing death squads to kill me since you can't shoot through the internet. You gotta be Zen.

>Show me one single example of workers actually controlling the means of production.
Yugoslavia
>Show me one single example of communism being attempted without state socialism.
Catalonia
>Tell me how exactly would companies form in a communistic society where nobody has any motivation for forming those companies as there is no notable benefit in it as there would be in a capitalistic society.
Companies as we now understand wouldn't and shouldn't be able to form.
However in the case of cooperatives and communes I see no reason why they couldn't form. Despite not making fat profits as is the case with private companies very often people do indeed gather their resources together to form one of these. The Kibbutz of Israel being a prime example of this happening on a large scale.
>Tell me how those people who are now bourgeoisie would simply not seek power through political means instead?
That's a good question. And ultimately I would say there's no way to prevent the people who want to take power from taking power, you can only delay it. Sooner or later these people in significant numbers will penetrate the state and subsequently society will rot. As it always does when these kind of people take power.

But I think the best way to delay it would be to have a democratic state. But restrict that democracy only to people from very educated and qualified professions in the hope that they will be the most resilient to demagoguery.

>jealous loser meme

One can make the analogy that people who hate wealthy capitalists are like Neo-Nazis losers who hate Jews simply because they are successful, not because they actually did something wrong.
Feminist women envy male success.
Anti-feminist men envy female success and so on.

At what point does this become a shity fallacy?

Actually I whine about them taking my surplus value. I could not care less about how wealthy and powerful they are, I care that I'm poorer because of it.

>No, you didn't explain shit. You can establish a business with money you saved over the years.
As I acknowledged with the gambling example there are ways to start a business independently. But these ways are so insignificant in comparison to stocks, loans and good old fashioned exploitation that it's pointless to zero in on them.

>First of all, marxists have tried for decades to extrapolate a theory of prices from the LTV, They couldn't.
You don't need to, even with the current orthodox price system surplus value still makes perfect sense. I made the thing, the customer bought the thing, on this transaction my boss made a profit. You may remember this from earlier.

On the count that, that profit represents a discrepancy between my produce and my pay and my boss is only recognized as the rightful owner of this produce because of the state enforced concept of private property we can indeed conclude that this is stealing.

>It's called "not actually building the entire thing and/or using machines that costed money in the first place".
I was using an example of an individual labourer to be as simple as possible. But this is equally true for assembly lines and so forth. They made the thing, the customer bought the thing and their boss still made a profit. This fundamental deficit is still present.

>machines
Built by workers.
Or built by machines that were built by workers.
Either way, eventually somewhere down the line you're going to get to workers. As it is always the case.

Some billionaires were born middle-class. But they're in the minority.

>The thing about this is there's no point getting mad and graphically describing how you'd like right wing death squads to kill me since you can't shoot through the internet. You gotta be Zen.
What in the world makes you think I'm mad? Are you new to Veeky Forums or something? Considering the anonymous nature of this site, I can freely talk about reality as it is, since there's no need to care about people's feelings. It's a simple fact that a communistic uprising would be met with violent opposition and chances are I would join in. Well, depending on the level of automatization and technological progress. Some form of socialism will certainly become a superior option for society as a whole at some point, but chances are I'll be dead then.

Which in non-classcuck means there are things stopping most people from just starting up their own company. Like most goods being dominated by long standing globalized corporations.

>Hurr just sell something new
Yeah good luck selling literal bobbles for a profit. Literally every need and want has been marketed.

There was a time when your ancestors could have made wealth through business, but they didn't and now you suffer for their mediocrity in the same way the rich benefit from their ancestors' superiority.
What you clearly want is to steal this wealth from them and take it for your own.

>But these ways are so insignificant in comparison to stocks, loans and good old fashioned exploitation that it's pointless to zero in on them.

And if you go back in the family history of those invididuals you'll find people who have made their fortune by starting a business independently.

>You don't need to, even with the current orthodox price system surplus value still makes perfect sense

No it doesn't, if it would, you could get a theory of prices from it. You can't, we've been over this.

>I made the thing, the customer bought the thing, on this transaction my boss made a profit.
>They made the thing, the customer bought the thing and their boss still made a profit

He made a profit because he put the money down for all the machines and the organization that allows for the various bits of the things to be put together to form the final thing.
In this arrangement, they capitalist gave them use of machines and organizing structure in exchange for money, which is perfectly fine.
If the workers don't like this arrangement, they can go start a coop. If they can't organize that way because the average factory worker has a IQ of 90 well, he will learn his place in society.
>Built by workers.

So what lol, they were still paid by the capitalist.

Wow you make capitalism so appealing. No wonder everyone is so supportive of a system where the rich can horde their wealth.

And you make communism so appealing. No wonder the plebs are so supportive of a system that justifies theft on a societal scale.

>How will I ever afford my fourth mansion?!

Are you even wealthy or just a pathetic shill slave who thinks by kissing his master's feet he'll somehow become like them?

>wanting your family to be well off is BAD!

wow I wonder why leftists tend to be more neurotic and depressed on average

Yeah, he has made socialism sound pretty appealing actually, if only by contrast to what you've upheld as being the optimum system.

Neither. I simply see things as they are and what I see now is you projecting your own views onto mine. If the people have the power to steal wealth from the bourgeoisie for their own sake, then they may do so. I require no moral justifications.

Let's say your utopia is achieved and you work for a worker's cooperative for $15 an hour and so does our prospective entrepreneur.

While you use your spare time and money for leisure the entrepreneur spends it setting up a custom sex toy e-business. After months of work business starts to pick up and they decide to quit their job at the cooperative, months later they decide to hire someone for $20 an hour.

Why is this a """crime"""?

leftypol cuckolds love capitalists

Because it's a superior system that without the use of collective violence and force cannot be usurped in the favor of a communistic system. Same way a communistic system is bound to collapse unless it is either completely isolated from capitalistic systems, or conquers all of them.

socialists are always a goldmine for laughs.
If you go on the socialist subreddit right now there's a post on ableism. Like, unironically.

It says stuff like having autism isn't worse than not having it.
I wish I was making this up.

>fuck those guys seriously when will Hitler come back and make all land speculation and rent illegal again?
all the people in the working class in liberal societies dream of becoming landlords which they think would make them little bourgeois

>the accumulation of wealth by the few is bad
>I believe in saving money for the future and passing the wealth on to my children
Sweating_wagecuck.jpg

>And if you go back in the family history of those invididuals you'll find people who have made their fortune by starting a business independently.
And those people are dead. Now I'm getting exploited by their descendants who are by no means self-made.

Or more likely. If you go back in the family history of these individuals you'll find people who made their fortune from benefiting from contemporary politics, like colonialism and feudalism.

>No it doesn't, if it would, you could get a theory of prices from it. You can't, we've been over this.
Surplus value and LTV are different things I hope you realize.
LTV concerns the value. Lets say I farm potatoes. The nutrition provided by those potatoes is what gives it use value and subsequently what gives it exchange value on the market. No matter how you swing it, it is I who created the value by farming the potatoes. The price however comes from the supply (the quantity of potatoes farmed and brought to market) and demand (the desire of people to eat potatoes) as we now understand. But this doesn't undermine the earlier premise.

Concerning surplus value these potatoes are sold at the price set by supply and demand. But were I to be farming these potatoes in exchange for a wage from someone else they would have to be making a profit. To do this there is a discrepancy between what they pay me and what the customers pay them for the potatoes. This discrepancy as said earlier is the surplus value.

>So what lol, they were still paid by the capitalist.
And as established the money came from workers to begin with anyway. It's quite poetic that the final point would be refuted by the initial point, it highlights how truly inescapable it is that the workers hold the world on their shoulders.

>There's nothing wrong with 1% of people dominating everyone else, right master?!
Groveling_classcuck.png

The accumulation of wealth is bad when you consider the future, with full automatization, strong AI and superhuman automatons. All possible power will be in the hands of whoever owns the means of production.

Because clearly dragon-dildos are worth more than $20.

Except they don't dominate everyone else. You can buy a gun and go shoot any of the top richest people on Earth. Hell, you could kill the Rotschilds themselves if you just found out where they are.
But whining about them is easier, am I right?

and yet you crave to get a bit of inheritance

But that's already the plan.

>You're not an economic slave, you still have violent revolution as an option!

Such a free society, where the only way to break the shackles of economic dominance is through mass purging of the most powerful men in the world. Even then, killing Gates or Soros won't end the root of the problem. Their corporations will survive them and replace them with a new billionaire to take over.

>Now I'm getting exploited by their descendants who are by no means self-made.

What does it matter if they're self-made or not?

>The nutrition provided by those potatoes is what gives it use value and subsequently what gives it exchange value on the market.
No matter how you swing it, it is I who created the value by farming the potatoes

No, what gives it value is whatever the demand says. It's not the act of farming them that gives them value, it's the act of valuing them on part of the market that gives them value.
Let's say nobody farms potatoes, they just grow naturally. Do they have value? Even when they're still in the ground? Yes.
Let's say you do farm potatoes, but nobody wants them because they're all robots. Do they have value? No. Are you still doing things all the same? Yes. So it's not any of your actions that give value to potatoes.

>And as established the money came from workers to begin with anyway

No, it wasn't established at all.

Says who?

Have to fool the plebs with beautiful dreams and rosy words first, though.

>Such a free society,
It is. The fact that the corporations got into power is a clear sign of it being a free one. So long as the people have the possibility to usurp power, things are still well.

...

>waaaaah waaaaaaah I want everything without any effort

lol

You don't?

>Rich r gud bois, dey diserv dat mone. Sum dey I'mma be lik dem, jus u watch!

Keep shilling, maybe Bill Gates will watch and let you become his personal shoe shiner.

No, I'm not a child.

I don't give a fuck about becoming rich.

So having the means for a violent purging of the wealthy is good...but actually doing it is evil commie talk?

???

In the meantime what? Do nothing to close the wealth gaps and just jerk off your gun while muttering empty threats?

t. Machiavelli

>is evil commie talk?
Stop projecting. Abandon spooks. Accept amorality.

Because muh debunked theory of value

Could also just be an excuse to confiscate the means of production.

some are
bad-dragon.com/products/vasu

I admit I am not an expert in the sex toy industry, maybe it uses specialized motors and vibrators, 3d printing or acts more of a retailer, connecting consumers to suppliers. It doesn't have to be a custom sex toy e-business, it could be any other business that poses a similar dilemma in the discussion we are having.

>What does it matter if they're self-made or not?
Because the crux of the argument is that their money ultimately comes from sources other than their own hard graft. And here this is the case, they got the money by being born in the right family.

>No, what gives it value is whatever the demand says.
As explained in my post value and price are two different things. The value is the nutrition provided by potatoes, this is what people buy them for. The price is whatever the demand says it is, as acknowledged and explained as well in my post.

>Let's say nobody farms potatoes, they just grow naturally. Do they have value? Even when they're still in the ground? Yes.
Indeed, Marx acknowledges that nature itself as a source of value.

>Do they have value?
Yes because I as a human still exist to eat them.

>So it's not any of your actions that give value to potatoes.
1. That aspect of it didn't actually come into my post. It was entirely predicated on the use value of the potatoes and the subsequent market set price.
2. Actually it does on the count that supply is also an important part of pricing and the amount of labour required to produce something may very well impact the supply.

>No, it wasn't established at all.
I assumed it was because you didn't have any response to it besides ignoring the preceding argument and trying to start from square one.
>Yes, and? You still need money to start a business, the capitalist puts that money on the table.
You had already heard my counter-arguments to this. And after a while you just gave up on articulating responses to them.

My point wasn't that it's unrealistic for dragon-dildos to cost more than $20. I wasn't being sarcastic though now I can see how it sounded like it.

What I meant was that if he can make a profit on the dragon-dildos his employee makes on his $20 wage then it's apparent that they dildos he produces cost more than the wage he's getting. So he should consider it in his interest that the sex-toy economy transitions to a more socialist mode of organization.

>le catalonia was anarchist meme

Yugoslavia has a persistent 20% unemployment rate and people constantly left the country.

Catalonia was anarchist.

But for some reason a lot of people have it in their heads that anarchism requires pacifism.

>Yugoslavia has a persistent 20% unemployment rate and people constantly left the country.
I'm aware. On that front I think their guest-worker program was actually quite a smart way to handle unemployment, rather than just dreaming up bullshit jobs like the rest of the Eastern bloc did.

Often, they don't understand coordinating production, distribution and market research, or resource allocation in general, is work too.

That said, jobs such as "CEO" and "financial speculator" tend to attract scummy people.

Yes having gangs of red militias taking everyone's property, raping nuns and enforce CNT-FAI policy totally is anarchy. Well meme'd.

It's absolutely hilarious that you don't see anything wrong with a persistent 20% (or higher) unemployment rate and double digit inflation for decades.

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and enriched more people than any other economic system.

Value is relative to the individual, tastes and wants differ. You might find diamonds useless but others might not, whether that diamond was taken out of a mine or just plain found on the ground has nothing to do with it.

he took the risk to buy the place and now he reaps the benefits. nothing wrong here

>Yes having gangs of red militias taking everyone's property, raping nuns and enforce CNT-FAI policy totally is anarchy. Well meme'd.
Yes. It is.

You don't get anarchy by holding hands and singing kumbaya. Especially when there's fascists outside and Stalinists inside that would like to end it.

>It's absolutely hilarious that you don't see anything wrong with a persistent 20% (or higher) unemployment rate and double digit inflation for decades.
Did I say Yugoslavia was a perfect utopia or did I say that in Yugoslavia the workers controlled the means of production?

How is red militias enforcing CNT-FAI policy any different from a regular government doing so with police?

You very clearly stated were preferable to regular companies and used Yugoslavia as an example. I pointed out Yugoslavia was a shithole.

I just realize that humans are flawed and systems should take that into account.

Communism doesn't really take that into account though. Most ideologies are detached from reality.

>How is red militias enforcing CNT-FAI policy any different from a regular government doing so with police?
Because their policy is anarchism.

>You very clearly stated were preferable to regular companies and used Yugoslavia as an example.
I used Yugoslavia as an example of workers owning the means of production. Which I see as desirable, yes.

Was Yugoslavia a right utopia? Of course not, but this doesn't mean we cannot do better. Especially since as Yugoslavia established it is possible.

the fact that the CNT-FAI let the Catalan government exist and used it to enforce its policies completely destroys your arguments. Governments cannot enforce a policy of anarchisn.

Nobody denied that coops can exist, thousands exist in capitalist countries.

Basing your entire economy around them is stupid, since coops lack the means and incentives to properly innovative and expand, as evidence by Yugoslavia's unemployment problem.

>the fact that the CNT-FAI let the Catalan government exist and used it to enforce its policies completely destroys your arguments.
They let the Catalan government exist because in case you've forgotten there was a war going on and fracturing the republican side even more wasn't going to help anyway.

But in any case anarchism would have to be enforced in order for it to exist.

> Basing your entire economy around them is stupid, since coops lack the means and incentives to properly innovative and expand, as evidence by Yugoslavia's unemployment problem.
To an extent I agree, Yugoslavia did a lot of things wrong and from this we can get some valuable insights. In this instance it's clear that the government should aim to invest in the economy and empower people to start their own co-ops in order for such an economy to grow in the absence of bourgeois investors.

Why do some people hate hm?
What exactly did he do wrong?
It seems they're probably just jealous of his success and wouldn't actually mind being in his shoes.

He is an outsider that is believed to not be allied with their group.

Underrated

Yeah it couldn't just be luck.

>then my cuck fantasies wouldn't feel as good