I've been reading some Marx and I still don't quite understand it...

He would be kulak and get executed. His property would be put into a collective and your lawn would then get mowed twice a year,

once the revolution comes, the marxists would start arguing whether or not hes a kulak or proletariat, then they'd start killing each other

He's still selling his labor, which means he is working class, and which also means he is exploited. At least according to Marxist thought.

Exploited by whom exactly? The system, the people he pays money for food or people who pay for his services?

Don't think too hard into it, it is really THAT stupid

The whole point of Marxist thought is that the people who do all the work in producing things for sale in a market, e.g the working class, never get paid what the production is actually worth, only what the capitalist is willing to pay for their services.

The capitalist in the Mexican immigrant's case is the person who owns the land that he is mowing.

How the fuck does someone calculate what cutting someone's grass is worth in objective terms?

Who knows, I was just trying to explain the Marxist critique of capitalism.

uuuhhh, something something, socially necessary labor and stuff

m-muh revolution

The Communist government officials would have to meet and decide amongst themselves. Should it be pay by the hour, pay by m^2 or maybe pay by length of grass that is cut. Cutting meter high grass is much more difficult than trimming down some already neat grass, afterall.

When the Government is done deciding that they can move on to deciding the price of haircuts, backrubs, back up dancer rates and of course the opposition's party leader's salary.

Praise the Marx!

As explained to me by a commie I went to high school with he is petit bourgeois and will be "educated to the error of his ways"

>pasty white, sheltered high school communists trying to convince a self employed blue collar mexican immigrant to stop earning money

just imagining it makes me kek

Both. Money itself is dead labor.
Communism is retarded.

>communist government
Retard.

Tetris is literally the perfect game

Marxism applied to pizza.

The drivers, cashiers, and shift-managers all gather up and kill the store owner by frying him in the oven.

They than work at the store without pay. In addition to their old jobs they must also do all the work the store owner did such as the complex legal forms, deciding how much of each stock to buy, paying the massive rent, and investing tons of money into keepign the bussiness alive.

They make, deliver, and serve the pizza for free. In exchange for this they hope others will also give them free stuff as they are now part of a 'community'.

The lawn-mower in that scenario is nothing more than a status symbol for the capitalist, like escorts or maidservants or bootshiners
he's just a whore for the rich who doesn't really produce any value besides prestige for his exploiter, in a more rational economy he would be doing something more productive or beautiful with his time

>the owner does the complex legal forms
what kind of shitty fucking company did you work at?

Marx's work is almost never moral in nature.

aside from butthurt poor people who don't know any better? they're ant people

actually that applies to everything else too
>deciding how much of each stock to buy
>allocating funds for expenses
>reinvesting profits
that's basically only the owner's jobs for the very smallest businesses where it's one dude and there's no reason you can't have someone doing the same job for a fraction of the cut the original owner took, that's what virtually all businesses end up doing

One where the customer base had on average 6 figure incomes.

Ever heard of a fucking business license? Or a franchise contract? Or a land lease?

>will be "educated to the error of his ways"
holy fuck what the hell is wrong with leftypol faggots?

>One where the customer base had on average 6 figure incomes.
I have no idea what that says about your company honestly, especially if I don't know your activity

>Ever heard of a fucking business license?
yeah I have one
>Or a franchise contract? Or a land lease?
that's nice except you're implying that A) the owner must have filled those himself B) anyone else couldn't have done that shit and probably better than them

I literally worked for a franchisor, the boss neither wrote nor filled the paperwork, nor did the self-employed dude who was contracted to prospect for franchisees, and neither did the franchisees who signed up even though our main targets were very small businesses (1-6 employees)
precisely because we know those hate dealing with complicated paperwork so we had the whole franchise packages ready for them

this simple case alone has proven just how fucking retarded communism is. Im bringing up this guy in every other communist discussion I come about just to highlight this fact

So I'm assuming there are no janitors or cleaners of any kind in a communist society then? Everybody just does it themselves for free?

>draw hentai
>own workstation and paints
>makes dosh on my terms
>no employees
>no bosses

He is not capitalist since he isn't employing anyone. He is petit bourgeoisie like me. Marx would say we both have an interest in maintaining capitalism and would ally with the reactionaries when the revolution comes and would probably gulag us just to be safe. desu as long as you oppress the bourgiouse like the rest of the prolet you'll be fine. No one is going to gulag a mom & pop shop or the lemonade stand kid.

I can sell what I want bish.

So Marx was some sort of religious prophet?

basically. communism is essenitally a secular religion. a big dumb retarded religion, complete with martyrs and heretics and schisms and reformations and holy wars and sacred prophecies and holy texts

>Woah you mean people would polish their own shoes? That's absurd! How is anyone supposed to survive without a maid and a mexican mowing their lawn?

also you know there are literally volunteer neighborhood cleaning initiatives right? in East Asia they make students clean their schools for the most part too.

Man, volunteering to be a sewage worker for free would sure suck then.

except you're not "volunteering for free" any more than for any other job.
sewage workers would have at least as much "income" and status as they do now

How would their pay be calculated? They don't produce anything.

are you trolling now

Sewage workers don't produce anything, and under communism you keep the full value of what you produce, so they wouldn't get anything.

If you want the latest Xbox 9000 you can spend 10 hours at a care giving centre or serve at a Mcodnalds to prepare for the release date. But if you waited a year there would be a way to mass produce it so you could just pick one up at the distribution centre for free. The only ones who have to work are people who want expensive luxe shit, the robots and the Party.

>in a more rational economy he would be doing something more productive or beautiful with his time
Why are you looking down on the working class? Someone has to do these jobs, they don't magically get done.

>someone has to come from Mexico to mow some faggot's lawn because he can't be assed to do it himself
no

Do you think that everybody should mow their lawn? Do you think a highly specialized brain surgeon should take precious time off of his schedule which could be used to save countless other lives, all in order to cut grass?

If I can pick it up for free what's to stop me from picking up hundreds of them?

because maintaining your lawn is an nonnegotiable and vital component of a rational economy
but let's humor you, if he doesn't have any kids he could ask the neighbors' kids to do it for him
if that's too inconvenient then maybe one dude in the whole neighborhood could take over lawnmowing duties or it could rotate. this dude would have similar social status to the guys he serves and his relation with them would be more like the relation you have with a physician or advisor than the one you have with the walmart cashier
plenty of well-paid professionals etc garden as a hobby anyway and there's actually a trend where they quit their jobs to go "back" to farming or cooking or whatever, what an absurd argument

>because maintaining your lawn is an nonnegotiable and vital component of a rational economy
It's nice to have lawns. I know you commies have a fetish for big gray blocks but I can confirm from personal experience that having a garden is enjoyable.

>if that's too inconvenient then maybe one dude in the whole neighborhood could take over lawnmowing duties or it could rotate. this dude would have similar social status to the guys he serves and his relation with them would be more like the relation you have with a physician or advisor than the one you have with the walmart cashier
Hey I had an idea, what if this dude who goes around mowing lawns gets a compensation for his work by the guys whose lawns he mows. Since these guys probably don't know exactly what that guy's needs are, how about they create a exchange system based on cheap pieces of paper which have a certain agreed upon value, that can be exchanged for other goods and services?

now that I think about it maybe neurosurgeons and hospital workers in general wouldn't be such complete wrecks if they took some time to garden and mow their lawns actually, no wonder most of those professionals who quit their jobs were working in medical fields

Mowing lawns is just one component. What about construction workers? They're also technically working for a "boss". And so are farmers. Should the neurosurgeon have to build his own house and grow his own crops?

>having a garden is enjoyable.
so is having a car and a yacht and a pony, maybe you could pick one of these and maintain it yourself

>Hey I had an idea, what if this dude who goes around mowing lawns gets a compensation for his work by the guys whose lawns he mows. Since these guys probably don't know exactly what that guy's needs are, how about they create a exchange system based on cheap pieces of paper which have a certain agreed upon value, that can be exchanged for other goods and services?
I predict the dudes doing the job will feel severely devalued and shafted after decades or generations of doing under that system, especially if they started out equal in status

no?

>so is having a car and a yacht and a pony, maybe you could pick one of these and maintain it yourself
Having a garden is cheaper than having a yacht.

>I predict the dudes doing the job will feel severely devalued and shafted after decades or generations of doing under that system, especially if they started out equal in status
I wasn't aware there was a hereditary caste of gardeners.

Just curious, have you ever worked in your life?

Then you're contradicting yourself.

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
>or else

Beyond that and moral compunction nothing is stopping you from being an asshole.

>inb4 b-buh who decides how much is TOO MUCH

The law does. They won't prescribe numbers because wtf. It'll be what is reasonable for you to take. Courts judge from there.

>Having a garden is cheaper than having a yacht.
also less nice, but what's your point?

>I wasn't aware there was a hereditary caste of gardeners.
generally known as mexican migrants in the US, or proles more generally

no? are you retarded?

>also less nice, but what's your point?
That equating a garden with a yacht is absurd.

>generally known as mexican migrants in the US
A recent phenomena. Also you haven't answered my question. Have you ever held a job?

>gardeners shouldn't have to work for others, that's exploitation!
>but construction workers can work for others lol XD
You're contradicting yourself.

Yes. I don't really know what the point of asking that is.

>That equating a garden with a yacht is absurd.
True enough, a yacht is rather high tech
let's say a garden or a pony plus a sports car or a boat, pick what you like but you'll have to take care of them

Do you think 7 billion people could own boats and maintain them?

Construction workers would work for themselves though, like all producers. They produce houses and buildings.

>The law does
How is there law without a state?

Do you think 7 billion people could own lawns and gardens and maintain them? Why not? What about sports cars?

>Do you think 7 billion people could own lawns and gardens and maintain them? Why not? What about sports cars?
No, definitely not.

How is an independent gardener who owns his own tools not working for himself?

>No, definitely not.
Then why should some people get to have a lawn and someone to maintain it for them?

>How is an independent gardener who owns his own tools not working for himself?
Everyone can garden all they like for whoever they like, the tool requirements are insignificant, especially if they are communally available (I mean, you can already borrow your neighbors' tools even right now)

>Then why should some people get to have a lawn and someone to maintain it for them?
It's a luxury that they can enjoy if they can afford it. They can afford it if the value they contribute to society, for which they are compensated, allows them to.

>Everyone can garden all they like for whoever they like, the tool requirements are insignificant, especially if they are communally available (I mean, you can already borrow your neighbors' tools even right now)
You didn't answer the question. How is an independent gardener who owns his tools not working for himself?

I'm talking about socialism. I have no clue how communism and legal functions interact.

Marxist-Leninist would say the state should wither away once the global bourgiouse are properly suppressed and ideologically defeated. Anarchists will tell you different. From there I can only imagine that the culture of community, surplus and plenty would eliminate human drives for obscene greed. I know it sounds gay and soft but I'm still learning myself.

My maternal grandparents were dirt poor Mexican immigrants and my grandfather was picked mushrooms and the majority of my friends have the same family history. None of us are gardeners and stop trying to group us as a collective that isn't capable of going into other professions in the US faggot

dirty spic stop feeding the white supremacist machine

>They can afford it if the value they contribute to society, for which they are compensated, allows them to.
What is this system where people are compensated for the value they contribute to society? Because it's clearly not capitalism, that's the entire point.

>How is an independent gardener who owns his tools not working for himself?
The issue is they are currently exploited by the rich much like prostitutes or maids, stuck into doing tasks seen as being too degrading and low status for the rich and their relatives or friends to do themselves. Mowing someone's lawn should be the same as inviting them over for dinner ("independent cooks own their tools and work for themselves..."). After all, it's basically a household chore.

I don't see how a "culture" is going to prevent people from starving or do away with basic concepts like scarcity.

>What is this system where people are compensated for the value they contribute to society?
Free market capitalism

>Because it's clearly not capitalism,
How so? People become rich under capitalism by giving to other people what they want.

>The issue is they are currently exploited by the rich much like prostitutes or maids, stuck into doing tasks seen as being too degrading and low status for the rich and their relatives or friends to do themselves.
But how is this not applicable to other professions such as bartender, restaurant owner, nanny, tourist guide or taxi driver?

>Mowing someone's lawn should be the same as inviting them over for dinner
This is the most retarded thing I've ever read. Marxists really are braindead drooling morons. Go kill yourself faggot nigger.

>how dare you say mexican migrants are the designated low-pay laborer class, all the mexican migrant I know are low-pay laborers!
woah you really proved me wrong there
I guess you took offense to the "hereditary" but guess what, it's still Mexican migrants doing those jobs

>Free market capitalism
even more utopian than full communism

>People become rich under capitalism by giving to other people what they want.
people make a living under capitalism giving the rich what they want, the capitalists as a class got rich through primitive accumulation and stay rich by appropriating surplus value from the workers they exploit

>But how is this not applicable to other professions such as bartender, restaurant owner, nanny, tourist guide or taxi driver?
But it is? If you want to provide cocktails or banquets you can. I guess bars and restaurants are pretty high capital in their current incarnations but nobody says they have to keep existing like that, they certainly aren't vital. Nannies, tourists and drivers are absolutely replaceable (and indeed are routinely replaced) in the informal economy. You don't need to exploit these people for surplus value in any case.

Man, I admit I don't browse Veeky Forums very often so I really have to ask. Is this some subtle troll or are communists really this fucking retarded?

is the idea that people should mow lawns and cook dinners for each others without wage relations so utterly mindblowing to you?

The idea that retarded pieces of shit like you would look down on two people coming to an agreement in which one performs a "chore", a "degrading work" as you call it, for another in exchange for favors, goods or money, is what makes me want to puke.

> hey if you cook dinner i'll watch over your kids next weekend
> ay hol up, comrade, that is unacceptable and you must do it for free

All commies must hang from lampposts.

I'm not the one who came up with the term "household chore"
maybe you're unaware in your comfy basement with your tendies but mowing the lawn is what you force your kids to do to punish them in middle or lower class families, and what you pay Jose to do in upper class families
and yes, working as a maid or other menial servant is degrading for elites, has been for a dozen centuries at least

also
>hey if you cook dinner i'll watch over your kids next weekend
that's literally what I'm saying should be happening you mong

Seems easy when there's a small community, but not so much when you have a 7 billion people relying on each other with no reason to trust each other.

that's literally how it has worked for centuries for ~95% of the population and, shit, that's still how it works for a good 80% of the global population
That this stopped working in the atomized West should be rightly seen as a sign of the incoming collapse of society.

>with no reason to trust each other
yeah those Chinese elites in Manilla who get murdered by their Filipino servants are forced to use servants and slaves because they can't trust their fellow Chinks
retard

>that's literally how it has worked for centuries for ~95% of the population
And the vast majority of the world has and still does live in small communities.

Good. It's not like you can't live in close-knit communities in the West either, people do it even in the metropolitan areas, from upscale districts and gated communities down to the 'hoods, nevermind religious communities. It's just that their relations with entire classes of people are poisoned.

If I saw more of an effort out of communism to recreate the tight-knit small communities of old then I would be much more supportive of it.

>those Chinese elites in Manilla who get murdered by their Filipino servants
Ah, found the link again:
prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/amy-chua-philippines-chinese-minority-free-market-democracy-ethnic-hatred

>Nearly two thirds of the roughly 80m ethnic Filipinos in the Philippines live on less than $2 a day. But poverty by itself does not make people kill. To poverty must be added indignity, hopelessness and grievance. In the Philippines, millions of Filipinos work for Chinese; almost no Chinese work for Filipinos. The Chinese dominate industry and commerce at every level of society. Global markets intensify this dominance: When foreign investors do business in the Philippines, they deal almost exclusively with Chinese. Apart from a handful of corrupt politicians and a few aristocratic Spanish mestizo families, all of the Philippines’ billionaires are of Chinese descent. My relatives live literally walled off from the Filipino masses, in a luxurious, all-Chinese residential enclave, on streets named Harvard and Princeton. The entry points are manned by armed guards.

>Each time I think of Nilo Abique – he was nearly six feet tall and my aunt was 4’11” – I find myself welling up with a hatred and revulsion so intense it is actually consoling. But over time I have also had glimpses of how the vast majority of Filipinos, especially someone like Abique, must see the Chinese: as exploiters, foreign intruders, their wealth inexplicable, their superiority intolerable. I will never forget the entry in the police report for Abique’s “motive for murder.” The motive given was not robbery, despite the fact that jewels and money were taken. Instead there was just one word – “revenge.”

Just to be clear, it's not like things are magically better if Flips take the place of Chinks. It's that class relations are much more visible when you capitalist = ethnic minority and prole = ethnic majority

>Would he think that producing something purely for entertainment value (video games, movies, festivals) be an immoral waste of resources, and in essence stealing the resources from the population?
Only if it's a shit game or shit film, otherwise the labour entered is socially-necessary. Marx thought tobacco socially-necessary, insofar as it formed part of a workmens subsistence.

>What if I wanted to make something just for my enjoyment, and I didn't want to make stuff for the benefit of mankind?
So long as you do not employ wage-labour.

>tfw your ideas are so dumb they sound like troll when read back

And everyone can build all they like for whoever they like, the tool requirements are insignificant.

I can't read this shit anymore. I am so glad communists only occasionally make threads on Veeky Forums these days instead of constantly.

Just putting it out there, it's less that there are no poor chinese-filipinos but that the poor ones are largely invisible. Data on the matter is basically non-existent, but it was supposed that in the 90's (mostly as a ballpark figure) about 20% of those who can be categorised as ethnic chinese lived below the poverty line.

But that's not true. You absolutely can't compare mowing lawns, even mowing all the lawns in your neighborhood every week, with building homes. The proof of that, by the way, is that you have "self-employed Mexican migrant lawn-mowers who own their own tools" but you don't have the equivalent building houses: construction workers are inevitably exploited for their surplus value by capitalists because of the barriers to entry and capital requirements, while the mowers are just exploited for consumption.

construction workers are also usually illegal mexicans.

Yes, one of the commenters on that article points it out too and insists that it's not about ethnic tensions but "relations between servant and master."
The quote is perfectly accurate if you replace "Chinese" with "Bourgeois" and "Filipino" with "Prole" however. Because it's primarily class relations.

No shit. Do you truly not understand the point? Both are exploited, but one is exploited for surplus value because of the way production operates in the capitalist system, while the other is just prostituting himself like his sisters.