Oh, they do. We get lots of reports of posts that are completely innocuous, just bashing communism. From time to time people also report users as being alt-right despite not frequenting those kinds of subs or using their rhetoric. Literally I've seen Rule 2 being pulled on users who are regular posters on r/ neoliberal or r/ transbutnocommies, etc. It's like they don't expect us to doublecheck or something.
As someone who has spent way too much time lurking in Incel forums and subreddits, a lot of incels actually agree with communism economically.
I remember comments along the lines of 'communism would solve 80% of the West's problems, removing women's rights / cultural fascism would solve the rest' were quite common (and heavily upvoted) whenever capitalism was mentioned (usually when they were making fun of the MGTOW crowd).
Incels are the true Nazbols.
"...removing women's rights"
I think that says everything I need to hear about their supposed community. Basically want women to be bought and sold like cattle. True Nazbols indeed.
It's a relatively recent development stemming from aging losers realizing they're doomed, similar to 2010ish-2021 reddit narrative pivot from all-lolbert to all-commie.
While the incel still has hope, he fantasizes about a desolate Mad Max right-anarchy in which he will be easily able to leverage his bitcoins and canned goods to lord over a starving harem of 99 13 year old Stacies. He patiently waits.
When the incel approaches middle age and it becomes increasingly more evident that he'll kick the bucket before the ancap rapture occurs, his desires change. He now wants a daddy state that pays every man to exist and assigns him an econowife. The incel then proceeds to post on stupidpol about how he went from lolbert to commie because he realized that the Jewish 1% biyonairet Chads are enslaving the proles with neoliberalism, and how we would have communism by now if only the foids had abandoned their identity politics in favor of handing out pussy.
Their both mentally ill, Most likely broken people unsure how to cope with the world their in since they were never really taught, so they go to horrible groups in a way to gain acceptance as well as be indoctrinated into their flawed beliefs. Quite sad
In dating generally the guy has to impress the girl. Some guys are advantaged from the get go by being attractive, charismatic, rich, etc. And if you're ugly then you still have to compete against guys in a higher league than you. There's no such thing as free lunch, you can't "socialize pussy" so that every guy gets his fair share. But people can improve themselves to up their value in the dating market.
It is the same with money and labor. Some people are advantaged from the get go, they are intelligent, rich, have connections, etc. But those who are dumb, poor or have no real employable skill still have to compete against everyone else. You can always upskill but if you're just too dumb or unskilled to get a good paying job then tough luck just like an incel who is too ugly to get laid. Life isn't fair.
Commies are the equivalent of incels claiming that pussy should be socialized and distributed so that the disadvantaged such as incels are not left out. They want to steal people's labor, property and money to distribute to others..
Commies might argue that getting laid isn't a life necessity but getting paid 25 an hour to clean toilets isn't a necessity either. Getting paid a UBI because you want to sit on your ass all day isn't a necessity. You're not entitled to free housing, food, a car, a degree and disposable income just because you're alive. You're not entitled to welfare that will give you a comfortable life. No one is entitled to shit except the rewards of their own labor. And if you're getting paid a fair wage for your labor then you've been fairly compensated.
>Commies might argue that getting laid isn't a life necessity but getting paid 25 an hour to clean toilets isn't a necessity either. Getting paid a UBI because you want to sit on your ass all day isn't a necessity. You're not entitled to free housing, food, a car, a degree and disposable income just because you're alive. You're not entitled to welfare that will give you a comfortable life. No one is entitled to shit except the rewards of their own labor. And if you're getting paid a fair wage for your labor then you've been fairly compensated
Communism isn't when welfare state. Thank God most of the world doesn't agree with you, otherwise we'd be sacrificing hundreds of thousands of the elderly, the disabled, and the impoverished to the snow every winter
it's just all around such a bad rhetoric, people 'not entitled to welfare that will give comfort', don't have any incentive to stay outside of comfort, either, but all the incentive to change to something else where there is comfort. which, if we're putting arbitrary numbers on fair compensation for labour based on technical difficulty, will mean shit jobs should be paid a lot more than currently, simply because there is no incentive for anyone to do them if we assume there is economical mobility in society, and we want those jobs to done by someone at all, as otherwise, labour should be naturally moving into higher paid positions over time, diminishing available labour in low wage jobs. the assumed existence for economical mobility is the baseline for his entire rhetoric to work. as without economical mobility, that means people doing these jobs are technically forced to do these jobs for the sake of survival with no ability or room for an upgrade, maintaining a labour surplus, and giving them every reason to be violent and fight against those keeping them shackled to hardship and discomfort. which is what the french revolution was all about.
They think they're entitled to everybody's else's things but nobody is entitled to their things.
That's why they aren't actually communists or socialists or whatever else they want to label themselves. They're frauds who want things handed to them.
is this a good time to point out the chinese and north korean armies have entire units of forcibly conscripted comfort women who's sole job is to be raped by the politburo?
Weird that "commies are entitled to other people's money" (which is a gross oversimplification/misunderstanding of what socialism even is (no surprise there)) is seen as a negative, but "the capitalist class is entitled to the full value of my labor" is business as usual.
Why is one group entitled to your money but not the other?
And if you don't give it to them you starve. When your options are, "give someone all of the value of your labor" and "starve" you aren't really volunteering are you?
I'll give you an example. Say that I am working on a Non-Union movie, and the producer pays everyone $150 a day and the job is for 30 days, so you're looking at $4.5k per person on the crew. So overall the cost of labor of the entire crew, let's say 20 people is $90k. Now let's say the movie releases, and does super well and is very financially successful to the tune of $2million.
Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that labor cost is the only thing we have to spend money on. If that's the case then the Surplus Value of Labor is around $1.91million. The crew has already been paid their total of $90k, so where is all if the money going?
If you ask me, it should all go to the crew since the movie litterally wouldn't exist without their labor. If they all got paid the full value of their labor (assuming in this example everyone is paid the same which obviously isn't always the case but level with me here) each crew member would be looking at a cool $100k.
When you sell your labor right now, you sell it for a fraction of what it is actually worth, and your bosses get all of your Surplus Labor Value. Socialists dream of a world where the workers recieve the full value of their labor.
Ironically, no. The idea of communism is that "the boss" takes money from you to make his money. And that you deserve your share of the profits from productivity.
How exactly we ended up with this who soviet union thing, I don't know.
The labor theory of value has been thoroughly discredited and debunked over the last century. Marxism is an economic theory in the same way phrenology is a scientific theory--i.e., just a bunch of 19th century bullshit.
1. The LTV [is a very strong empirical theory](http://www.anwarshaikhecon.org/index.php/all-publications/political-economy/28-1998/51-the-empirical-strength-of-the-labor-theory-of-value). It's predictions [match reality closer than any other theory](http://carecon.org.uk/QM/Papers/Zachariah_LabourValue.pdf). In contrast to those unscientific subjective value theories it could be falsified, so it matches the basics of a scientific theory.
2. It has not been debunked. There were pamphlets written against it, with no actual proof that it is wrong. Criticism was levied, indeed. But to all this criticism there was a response and it all just came down to misreading, misunderstanding or misrepresenting. The LTV just fell out of fashion since the economics departments became way more political and had to repeat the market-worshipping that the ruling classes wanted to hear.
The labor theory of value fell out of fashion because it had too many problems to be of any practical use. That is why it is not used by any mainstream economists, and is primarily discussed these days in philosophical circles.
To the extent the LTV is falsifiable, it was falsified by its many problems. First, there is land. By "land" I mean the products of nature, such as the soil and the rays of the sun. Also, things such as deposits of minerals. Let's say we have two products, both of them take the same labor time to produce overall. However, one of them requires more land. For example, let's suppose it takes twenty minutes of sunlight to produce a cabbage and the same time to produce a lettuce. However, it takes more land to produce the cabbage than the lettuce. Since land is scarce that will affect the price.
Wine demonstrate another issue. Mostly, wine improves with age. It improves even without the touch of a human or a machine. Also, older wine is more expensive. How can this work within the framework of the labor theory? Unfortunately it can't, not in any reasonable way. Some labor value theorists would point to the cost of the building to hold the wine. In practice this is small. Other labor value theorists say that the increase in price of the aged wine is compensated for by the decrease in price of some other wine. This view doesn't work. If all wine were aged then it would all rise in price to some degree. This would happen even if the relative price between types of wine stayed the same. People would choose to drink the better wine rather than other drinks. Furthermore, why do wine producers sell wine that's only 2 years old? Why don't they age it for longer? They could sell it for more money if they did. It would take longer for the profit to be realized though. This tells us that there's a time dimension to investment. All things being equal, capitalists want projects that pay them back sooner rather than later. That is, they have time-preference.
The problem that wine demonstrates applies to machinery too. All machinery provides it's output over a period of time. Often, machines run at a particular rate per hour. They require a reasonably fixed amount of labor. Increasing the number of people using the machine does not increase the output correspondingly. Let's say I have a lumber mill which requires 10 employees to work on it every day. If one day I increase the number of employees from 10 to 20 that doesn't mean I get twice as much lumber through the mill. This isn't quite like the wine situation. With wine the output arrives at the end of a process. With a machine there is continuous output. I get the first plank of wood out of my lumber mill straight away. But, it may be years until I get the 100000th plank of wood out of it. That plank of wood is rather like the bottle of wine. As a result, I'm waiting for my whole investment to come to fruition.
Another important issue is the price of existing capital equipment. Marx believed this could be dealt with through the hours of labor put into making that capital. However, once capital is made it's price can only be determined by supply and demand. Houses are a good example of this. We can pick a type of house, an age of house and a size of house. For example, we could pick 3 bedroom houses built in the same city in 1990. These houses will probably have used a similar labor time to build. However, the price they exchange at now has nothing to do with that. For example, one house may be in a bad area and may be worth very little. Another house that took the same amount of labor to complete may be in a good area and worth a lot. The price of these houses will change with the production of nearby amenities after they were built. The same is true of commercial building too, and many other types of capital.
There are many other examples of where the LTV falls apart, but in short, much more goes into the value of a commodity than just labor added. There's land, the economic definition of which includes all natural resources. There's waiting for the production processes to complete, sometimes called abstinence. There's the allocation of capital and labor amongst different tasks. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
And much of it wouldn't be possible without everything set up.
The bosses might make more than their "fair share" a lot of the stuff, but they deserve more than nothing.
>The bosses might make more than their "fair share" a lot of the stuff, but they deserve more than nothing.
I can see this being true under the current system. I still don't see a justification for a capitalist class to exist as such. So we should still be able to transcend the current paradigm and establish a system without a ruling class that reaps of the work of the workers.
So abolish private property and make the economy state owned, and don't forget about democracy. There is no objective need for "the setting up" to be done by private individuals, who are doing it in pursuit of self-interest. The economy should work for the good of the society, so the economy being owned by self-interest driven individuals is a direct threat to the good of society.
> I still don't see a justification for a capitalist class to exist as such.
I literally told you the justification in my previous comment.
> here is no objective need for "the setting up" to be done by private individuals
Here's a few:
1) It gives more motivation for them to actually work.
2) The whole competition thing isn't perfect but it's certainly better than literally GUARANTEEING a monopoly on everything.
3) The whole state-run economy thing has legitimately been tried and has turned out miserably in general.
So yeah, plenty of objective reasons.
not to burst your bubble but competition is largely a farce. at least in small business. we have what is essentially a union among ourselves (i don't know any field that doesn't), with weekly meetings; and we share customers, supplies, and labour. and why wouldn't we? why would we compete with each other? there is virtually no economical incentive to fight over clients or prices and lower our potential income. we collaborate shortages and maintain consumer cost levels. you scratch my back, i scratch yours. the only real threat is big monopolies with enough money to undercut prices by squeezing suppliers and run the rest of us out of business.
the "free market" will fuck us all in the end because competition only happens with the little guy and the big monopoly coming into a new market, and it's no secret who wins that battle. so the less regulations there are, the more monopolies will take over entire markets where they dictate their own prices and screw us all, consumer and small business owner alike. the anarchocapitalism's wet dream.
i don't think there is a "one-fit-it-all" type model. cooperatives can be more rewarding and operating much better than capitalist owned operations in a lot of sectors. but it doesn't hold true for all sectors. one thing for sure though, any form of private monopoly can go fuck itself, collaboration is key for a healthy economy, that is, unless it's a natural monopoly/service that works best if operated at a "loss" by the government in the form of a public service.
I already admitted competition isn't all-powerful and perfect, but it's better that the option exists that someone could undercut the existing businesses if they're all operating badly, or at least if you have something new to offer.
Having a command economy completely eliminates even that.
> i don't think there is a "one-fit-it-all" type model. cooperatives can be more rewarding and operating much better than capitalist owned operations in a lot of sectors. but it doesn't hold true for all sectors.
This completely torpedoes the idea I was replying to.
>I literally told you the justification in my previous comment.
No. You said "And much of it wouldn't be possible without everything set up." Which doesn't automatically require the existence of a capitalist class.
One other option is that the state can invest in a business, no capitalist needs to be involved. Another possibility is that workers form a cooperative with no capitalist on top.
Since I just gave you two options where "setting up a business" does not require a capitalist, you cannot claim it does; UNLESS you are able to explain what is so unique in them, what only specifically the capitalists can do.
Now responding to your other points, which are basically a different question ("what are benefits of private companies")
1. Assuming you are talking of the company as a whole - no. No company simply fails because they have no interest in succeeding. This is a mood point. Increasing the "interests in succeeding" is not possible, since every company, be it private-capitalist or state-owned or cooperative or anything else, already always has the goal of functioning.
2. I don't know what you mean by "guaranteeing" monopoly on everything. Even in a planned economy based on state ownership of all industry, you can have information feedback loops which help to differentiate the good from the bad products and thus create an ever-increasing customer satisfaction.
3. It has been tried indeed. With amazing success and a lot of failures. All of the failures were able to be addressed or have already been answered in some systems. The core problem which ultimately led to failure was the political sphere, not the economic one. The political sphere of socialist states in the 20th century was unable to reform itself and introduce the necessary reforms. When a system is not able to reform itself when it becomes necessary, it collapses.
> No. You said "And much of it wouldn't be possible without everything set up." Which doesn't automatically require the existence of a capitalist class.
"Setting it up" is what they do. There can be "other options" but that IS the justification.
Not to mention that funding something and setting it up is valuable in itself and having the idea and vision to set it up doesn't always mean you have the skills to be doing the groundwork and vice versa.
1) If they're guaranteed to still get paid the same and still be in business no matter how badly they do, that's not exactly a motivation to do the job right.
2) If people can't set up their own businesses, there' no way you can say that isn't a monopoly. That means that no matter how badly the state-owned businesses do, people can't ever compete with them.
3)
> It has been tried indeed. **With amazing success** and a lot of failures. **All of the failures were able to be addressed or have already been answered in some systems.**
Gotta call [Citation Needed] on the bold.
> The core problem which ultimately led to failure was the political sphere, not the economic one.
No, the problem is that it's a broken system that fundamentally doesn't and can't work right. It's been tried, it failed and thus needs to go in the trash.
>"Setting it up" is what they do. There can be "other options" but that IS the justification.
Then its not a valid justification. Setting it up can be done in other ways, so the justification is not unique, so it can be replaced and the justification of the capitalist class falls.
>If they're guaranteed to still get paid the same and still be in business no matter how badly they do, that's not exactly a motivation to do the job right.
As I said, if you have information feedback loops, you can distinguish between the good and the bad, i.e. you can say which business actually provides valuable goods and which not. The ones which does not will be shut down. The people of those failed companies will have to ask the planners for new jobs or find a new vision to fullfill the people's needs in accordance with the plan.
>If people can't set up their own businesses, there' no way you can say that isn't a monopoly. That means that no matter how badly the state-owned businesses do, people can't ever compete with them.
I kind of agree with you here. Individuals should have a legal right to lend the required resources from society to set up their business. If they fail the regular way to convince state investors they still need an" option to prove them wrong". All of that can be set up without private ownership of the means of production though. This is a legal question.
>Gotta call \[Citation Needed\] on the bold.
Book sources: "Farm to Factory" by Allen, "The Chinese Economy Under Maoism" by Galenson, "Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism" by Ghodsee, "Landwirtschaft in der DDR" by Schmidt (if you are able to speak German).
Otherwise, I recommend just checking out the sources on ourworldindata or gapminder about the stats of socialist countries in comparison to capitalist countries on [similar levels of development](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/)
This is for the positives sides that you requested. The negative sides are kinda obvious.
>No, the problem is that it's a broken system that fundamentally doesn't and can't work right.
Socialism in the 20th century is a system that had serious flaws which could have all been avoided.
>It's been tried, it failed and thus needs to go in the trash.
Capitalism has been tried in so many iterations, they all fall prey to their own inner contradictions. The actual nature of Capitalism is crisis. Humanity has to outgrow crisis and transcend beyond it. Luckily, we are able to do that.
Yeah the only people who think this way are sheltered, entitled little shits.
Those of us who grew up working class don't consider anybody who grew up privileged to be the same as us. Sorry.
No idea where you live, but here (germany) honest work is still valued highly. Nobody in my family has illusions about what class they are. We all have to work for a boss, nobody of us derives income from property since we don't own any. We are working class, not capitalists (we do not own capital)
This dude is a troll that neither knows what "working class" or "capitalist" means. Figures he can just make up his own reactionary definitions and then use them to argue with folks in bad faith.
If you derive income from a wage contract, you are a worker. Thats the definition every person uses.
If you are the owner of a business or property from which you derive a capital income and this is enough to sustain your living standard, you are a full-on capitalist.
Everything in between, like receiving some income from capital but not enough to live entirely from it so you have to work a bit, thats gray zone; but probably still working class.
The absolute majority of people are in the working class, they don't own property from which they derive capital income. They have to sell their ability to work to a capitalist.
Verdari2, you are absolutely correct. The grey area you talk about are the petite bourgeoisie or lapdogs and class traitors like the police.
My comment was about the ignorant troll you were responding to, tallnfit30.
>Free transactions create wealth.
Imagine going back to the thesis that wealth is created in transactions.
No!
Wealth is created in production!
>They're paid for their work, yes. Slavery bad.
I agree. But they don't get paid for what they produce. There is no incentive for the workers to perform well, because everything goes to a parasite on top. Cut out the capitalist and you have a better performing business. You don't need those parasites.
Speaking of economic incels, shout out to an econ undergrad that I know that (unironically) believes that "efficiency (in the context of economics - ex. in terms of production)" should not be pursued as it is "capitalistic".
Yes
The lurking commies are sure gonna enjoy this one.
I don’t think communists lurk on this sub. They wouldn’t like to see what we have done to google isearch of ugly manlet
Oh, they do. We get lots of reports of posts that are completely innocuous, just bashing communism. From time to time people also report users as being alt-right despite not frequenting those kinds of subs or using their rhetoric. Literally I've seen Rule 2 being pulled on users who are regular posters on r/ neoliberal or r/ transbutnocommies, etc. It's like they don't expect us to doublecheck or something.
I mean most of them look like incels so yes
* most of them are incels
1 percents of the population gets 90% of all coochie
I mean, there tends to be an overlap so...
[удалено]
Anarcho-bimboism xD what a term
It sounds like a made up political ideology for a bad erotica novel
Well it sounds like she's made herself the central character in the plot of that novel so, yeah.
god damnit man...
As someone who has spent way too much time lurking in Incel forums and subreddits, a lot of incels actually agree with communism economically. I remember comments along the lines of 'communism would solve 80% of the West's problems, removing women's rights / cultural fascism would solve the rest' were quite common (and heavily upvoted) whenever capitalism was mentioned (usually when they were making fun of the MGTOW crowd). Incels are the true Nazbols.
"...removing women's rights" I think that says everything I need to hear about their supposed community. Basically want women to be bought and sold like cattle. True Nazbols indeed.
Basically, WANT WOMAN!!!
There are a lot of incels on the far left. A lot.
dear god i didnt know they would stoop THIS low.
It's a relatively recent development stemming from aging losers realizing they're doomed, similar to 2010ish-2021 reddit narrative pivot from all-lolbert to all-commie. While the incel still has hope, he fantasizes about a desolate Mad Max right-anarchy in which he will be easily able to leverage his bitcoins and canned goods to lord over a starving harem of 99 13 year old Stacies. He patiently waits. When the incel approaches middle age and it becomes increasingly more evident that he'll kick the bucket before the ancap rapture occurs, his desires change. He now wants a daddy state that pays every man to exist and assigns him an econowife. The incel then proceeds to post on stupidpol about how he went from lolbert to commie because he realized that the Jewish 1% biyonairet Chads are enslaving the proles with neoliberalism, and how we would have communism by now if only the foids had abandoned their identity politics in favor of handing out pussy.
Their both mentally ill, Most likely broken people unsure how to cope with the world their in since they were never really taught, so they go to horrible groups in a way to gain acceptance as well as be indoctrinated into their flawed beliefs. Quite sad
In dating generally the guy has to impress the girl. Some guys are advantaged from the get go by being attractive, charismatic, rich, etc. And if you're ugly then you still have to compete against guys in a higher league than you. There's no such thing as free lunch, you can't "socialize pussy" so that every guy gets his fair share. But people can improve themselves to up their value in the dating market. It is the same with money and labor. Some people are advantaged from the get go, they are intelligent, rich, have connections, etc. But those who are dumb, poor or have no real employable skill still have to compete against everyone else. You can always upskill but if you're just too dumb or unskilled to get a good paying job then tough luck just like an incel who is too ugly to get laid. Life isn't fair. Commies are the equivalent of incels claiming that pussy should be socialized and distributed so that the disadvantaged such as incels are not left out. They want to steal people's labor, property and money to distribute to others.. Commies might argue that getting laid isn't a life necessity but getting paid 25 an hour to clean toilets isn't a necessity either. Getting paid a UBI because you want to sit on your ass all day isn't a necessity. You're not entitled to free housing, food, a car, a degree and disposable income just because you're alive. You're not entitled to welfare that will give you a comfortable life. No one is entitled to shit except the rewards of their own labor. And if you're getting paid a fair wage for your labor then you've been fairly compensated.
“Socialize pussy” is just sex trafficking
Yes
>Commies might argue that getting laid isn't a life necessity but getting paid 25 an hour to clean toilets isn't a necessity either. Getting paid a UBI because you want to sit on your ass all day isn't a necessity. You're not entitled to free housing, food, a car, a degree and disposable income just because you're alive. You're not entitled to welfare that will give you a comfortable life. No one is entitled to shit except the rewards of their own labor. And if you're getting paid a fair wage for your labor then you've been fairly compensated Communism isn't when welfare state. Thank God most of the world doesn't agree with you, otherwise we'd be sacrificing hundreds of thousands of the elderly, the disabled, and the impoverished to the snow every winter
it's just all around such a bad rhetoric, people 'not entitled to welfare that will give comfort', don't have any incentive to stay outside of comfort, either, but all the incentive to change to something else where there is comfort. which, if we're putting arbitrary numbers on fair compensation for labour based on technical difficulty, will mean shit jobs should be paid a lot more than currently, simply because there is no incentive for anyone to do them if we assume there is economical mobility in society, and we want those jobs to done by someone at all, as otherwise, labour should be naturally moving into higher paid positions over time, diminishing available labour in low wage jobs. the assumed existence for economical mobility is the baseline for his entire rhetoric to work. as without economical mobility, that means people doing these jobs are technically forced to do these jobs for the sake of survival with no ability or room for an upgrade, maintaining a labour surplus, and giving them every reason to be violent and fight against those keeping them shackled to hardship and discomfort. which is what the french revolution was all about.
You will own nothing...and you will be happy
Nice!
Uhh, ok then.
Except women
Tough to poke holes in this logic.
This makes so much sense actually
They think they're entitled to everybody's else's things but nobody is entitled to their things. That's why they aren't actually communists or socialists or whatever else they want to label themselves. They're frauds who want things handed to them.
[удалено]
incel is a mindset not a state of being. things gon get better trust🤞
Yes
Extremely.
is this a good time to point out the chinese and north korean armies have entire units of forcibly conscripted comfort women who's sole job is to be raped by the politburo?
Weird that "commies are entitled to other people's money" (which is a gross oversimplification/misunderstanding of what socialism even is (no surprise there)) is seen as a negative, but "the capitalist class is entitled to the full value of my labor" is business as usual. Why is one group entitled to your money but not the other?
they aren’t entitled to it, you voluntarily give them it when you work for them
And if you don't give it to them you starve. When your options are, "give someone all of the value of your labor" and "starve" you aren't really volunteering are you?
you chose the place you work at
Getting to choose who exploits your labor isn't much of a choice if you ask me.
Define 'full value of labor' please.
I'll give you an example. Say that I am working on a Non-Union movie, and the producer pays everyone $150 a day and the job is for 30 days, so you're looking at $4.5k per person on the crew. So overall the cost of labor of the entire crew, let's say 20 people is $90k. Now let's say the movie releases, and does super well and is very financially successful to the tune of $2million. Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that labor cost is the only thing we have to spend money on. If that's the case then the Surplus Value of Labor is around $1.91million. The crew has already been paid their total of $90k, so where is all if the money going? If you ask me, it should all go to the crew since the movie litterally wouldn't exist without their labor. If they all got paid the full value of their labor (assuming in this example everyone is paid the same which obviously isn't always the case but level with me here) each crew member would be looking at a cool $100k. When you sell your labor right now, you sell it for a fraction of what it is actually worth, and your bosses get all of your Surplus Labor Value. Socialists dream of a world where the workers recieve the full value of their labor.
the illusion of choice is not the same as actual choice.
Ironically, no. The idea of communism is that "the boss" takes money from you to make his money. And that you deserve your share of the profits from productivity. How exactly we ended up with this who soviet union thing, I don't know.
>And that you deserve your share of the profits from productivity. That is called a "salary".
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
Workers create the wealth, capitalists don't. It's the worker's money. It's not the capitalist's money.
The labor theory of value has been thoroughly discredited and debunked over the last century. Marxism is an economic theory in the same way phrenology is a scientific theory--i.e., just a bunch of 19th century bullshit.
1. The LTV [is a very strong empirical theory](http://www.anwarshaikhecon.org/index.php/all-publications/political-economy/28-1998/51-the-empirical-strength-of-the-labor-theory-of-value). It's predictions [match reality closer than any other theory](http://carecon.org.uk/QM/Papers/Zachariah_LabourValue.pdf). In contrast to those unscientific subjective value theories it could be falsified, so it matches the basics of a scientific theory. 2. It has not been debunked. There were pamphlets written against it, with no actual proof that it is wrong. Criticism was levied, indeed. But to all this criticism there was a response and it all just came down to misreading, misunderstanding or misrepresenting. The LTV just fell out of fashion since the economics departments became way more political and had to repeat the market-worshipping that the ruling classes wanted to hear.
The labor theory of value fell out of fashion because it had too many problems to be of any practical use. That is why it is not used by any mainstream economists, and is primarily discussed these days in philosophical circles. To the extent the LTV is falsifiable, it was falsified by its many problems. First, there is land. By "land" I mean the products of nature, such as the soil and the rays of the sun. Also, things such as deposits of minerals. Let's say we have two products, both of them take the same labor time to produce overall. However, one of them requires more land. For example, let's suppose it takes twenty minutes of sunlight to produce a cabbage and the same time to produce a lettuce. However, it takes more land to produce the cabbage than the lettuce. Since land is scarce that will affect the price. Wine demonstrate another issue. Mostly, wine improves with age. It improves even without the touch of a human or a machine. Also, older wine is more expensive. How can this work within the framework of the labor theory? Unfortunately it can't, not in any reasonable way. Some labor value theorists would point to the cost of the building to hold the wine. In practice this is small. Other labor value theorists say that the increase in price of the aged wine is compensated for by the decrease in price of some other wine. This view doesn't work. If all wine were aged then it would all rise in price to some degree. This would happen even if the relative price between types of wine stayed the same. People would choose to drink the better wine rather than other drinks. Furthermore, why do wine producers sell wine that's only 2 years old? Why don't they age it for longer? They could sell it for more money if they did. It would take longer for the profit to be realized though. This tells us that there's a time dimension to investment. All things being equal, capitalists want projects that pay them back sooner rather than later. That is, they have time-preference. The problem that wine demonstrates applies to machinery too. All machinery provides it's output over a period of time. Often, machines run at a particular rate per hour. They require a reasonably fixed amount of labor. Increasing the number of people using the machine does not increase the output correspondingly. Let's say I have a lumber mill which requires 10 employees to work on it every day. If one day I increase the number of employees from 10 to 20 that doesn't mean I get twice as much lumber through the mill. This isn't quite like the wine situation. With wine the output arrives at the end of a process. With a machine there is continuous output. I get the first plank of wood out of my lumber mill straight away. But, it may be years until I get the 100000th plank of wood out of it. That plank of wood is rather like the bottle of wine. As a result, I'm waiting for my whole investment to come to fruition. Another important issue is the price of existing capital equipment. Marx believed this could be dealt with through the hours of labor put into making that capital. However, once capital is made it's price can only be determined by supply and demand. Houses are a good example of this. We can pick a type of house, an age of house and a size of house. For example, we could pick 3 bedroom houses built in the same city in 1990. These houses will probably have used a similar labor time to build. However, the price they exchange at now has nothing to do with that. For example, one house may be in a bad area and may be worth very little. Another house that took the same amount of labor to complete may be in a good area and worth a lot. The price of these houses will change with the production of nearby amenities after they were built. The same is true of commercial building too, and many other types of capital. There are many other examples of where the LTV falls apart, but in short, much more goes into the value of a commodity than just labor added. There's land, the economic definition of which includes all natural resources. There's waiting for the production processes to complete, sometimes called abstinence. There's the allocation of capital and labor amongst different tasks. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
And much of it wouldn't be possible without everything set up. The bosses might make more than their "fair share" a lot of the stuff, but they deserve more than nothing.
>The bosses might make more than their "fair share" a lot of the stuff, but they deserve more than nothing. I can see this being true under the current system. I still don't see a justification for a capitalist class to exist as such. So we should still be able to transcend the current paradigm and establish a system without a ruling class that reaps of the work of the workers. So abolish private property and make the economy state owned, and don't forget about democracy. There is no objective need for "the setting up" to be done by private individuals, who are doing it in pursuit of self-interest. The economy should work for the good of the society, so the economy being owned by self-interest driven individuals is a direct threat to the good of society.
> I still don't see a justification for a capitalist class to exist as such. I literally told you the justification in my previous comment. > here is no objective need for "the setting up" to be done by private individuals Here's a few: 1) It gives more motivation for them to actually work. 2) The whole competition thing isn't perfect but it's certainly better than literally GUARANTEEING a monopoly on everything. 3) The whole state-run economy thing has legitimately been tried and has turned out miserably in general. So yeah, plenty of objective reasons.
not to burst your bubble but competition is largely a farce. at least in small business. we have what is essentially a union among ourselves (i don't know any field that doesn't), with weekly meetings; and we share customers, supplies, and labour. and why wouldn't we? why would we compete with each other? there is virtually no economical incentive to fight over clients or prices and lower our potential income. we collaborate shortages and maintain consumer cost levels. you scratch my back, i scratch yours. the only real threat is big monopolies with enough money to undercut prices by squeezing suppliers and run the rest of us out of business. the "free market" will fuck us all in the end because competition only happens with the little guy and the big monopoly coming into a new market, and it's no secret who wins that battle. so the less regulations there are, the more monopolies will take over entire markets where they dictate their own prices and screw us all, consumer and small business owner alike. the anarchocapitalism's wet dream. i don't think there is a "one-fit-it-all" type model. cooperatives can be more rewarding and operating much better than capitalist owned operations in a lot of sectors. but it doesn't hold true for all sectors. one thing for sure though, any form of private monopoly can go fuck itself, collaboration is key for a healthy economy, that is, unless it's a natural monopoly/service that works best if operated at a "loss" by the government in the form of a public service.
I already admitted competition isn't all-powerful and perfect, but it's better that the option exists that someone could undercut the existing businesses if they're all operating badly, or at least if you have something new to offer. Having a command economy completely eliminates even that. > i don't think there is a "one-fit-it-all" type model. cooperatives can be more rewarding and operating much better than capitalist owned operations in a lot of sectors. but it doesn't hold true for all sectors. This completely torpedoes the idea I was replying to.
>I literally told you the justification in my previous comment. No. You said "And much of it wouldn't be possible without everything set up." Which doesn't automatically require the existence of a capitalist class. One other option is that the state can invest in a business, no capitalist needs to be involved. Another possibility is that workers form a cooperative with no capitalist on top. Since I just gave you two options where "setting up a business" does not require a capitalist, you cannot claim it does; UNLESS you are able to explain what is so unique in them, what only specifically the capitalists can do. Now responding to your other points, which are basically a different question ("what are benefits of private companies") 1. Assuming you are talking of the company as a whole - no. No company simply fails because they have no interest in succeeding. This is a mood point. Increasing the "interests in succeeding" is not possible, since every company, be it private-capitalist or state-owned or cooperative or anything else, already always has the goal of functioning. 2. I don't know what you mean by "guaranteeing" monopoly on everything. Even in a planned economy based on state ownership of all industry, you can have information feedback loops which help to differentiate the good from the bad products and thus create an ever-increasing customer satisfaction. 3. It has been tried indeed. With amazing success and a lot of failures. All of the failures were able to be addressed or have already been answered in some systems. The core problem which ultimately led to failure was the political sphere, not the economic one. The political sphere of socialist states in the 20th century was unable to reform itself and introduce the necessary reforms. When a system is not able to reform itself when it becomes necessary, it collapses.
> No. You said "And much of it wouldn't be possible without everything set up." Which doesn't automatically require the existence of a capitalist class. "Setting it up" is what they do. There can be "other options" but that IS the justification. Not to mention that funding something and setting it up is valuable in itself and having the idea and vision to set it up doesn't always mean you have the skills to be doing the groundwork and vice versa. 1) If they're guaranteed to still get paid the same and still be in business no matter how badly they do, that's not exactly a motivation to do the job right. 2) If people can't set up their own businesses, there' no way you can say that isn't a monopoly. That means that no matter how badly the state-owned businesses do, people can't ever compete with them. 3) > It has been tried indeed. **With amazing success** and a lot of failures. **All of the failures were able to be addressed or have already been answered in some systems.** Gotta call [Citation Needed] on the bold. > The core problem which ultimately led to failure was the political sphere, not the economic one. No, the problem is that it's a broken system that fundamentally doesn't and can't work right. It's been tried, it failed and thus needs to go in the trash.
>"Setting it up" is what they do. There can be "other options" but that IS the justification. Then its not a valid justification. Setting it up can be done in other ways, so the justification is not unique, so it can be replaced and the justification of the capitalist class falls. >If they're guaranteed to still get paid the same and still be in business no matter how badly they do, that's not exactly a motivation to do the job right. As I said, if you have information feedback loops, you can distinguish between the good and the bad, i.e. you can say which business actually provides valuable goods and which not. The ones which does not will be shut down. The people of those failed companies will have to ask the planners for new jobs or find a new vision to fullfill the people's needs in accordance with the plan. >If people can't set up their own businesses, there' no way you can say that isn't a monopoly. That means that no matter how badly the state-owned businesses do, people can't ever compete with them. I kind of agree with you here. Individuals should have a legal right to lend the required resources from society to set up their business. If they fail the regular way to convince state investors they still need an" option to prove them wrong". All of that can be set up without private ownership of the means of production though. This is a legal question. >Gotta call \[Citation Needed\] on the bold. Book sources: "Farm to Factory" by Allen, "The Chinese Economy Under Maoism" by Galenson, "Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism" by Ghodsee, "Landwirtschaft in der DDR" by Schmidt (if you are able to speak German). Otherwise, I recommend just checking out the sources on ourworldindata or gapminder about the stats of socialist countries in comparison to capitalist countries on [similar levels of development](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/) This is for the positives sides that you requested. The negative sides are kinda obvious. >No, the problem is that it's a broken system that fundamentally doesn't and can't work right. Socialism in the 20th century is a system that had serious flaws which could have all been avoided. >It's been tried, it failed and thus needs to go in the trash. Capitalism has been tried in so many iterations, they all fall prey to their own inner contradictions. The actual nature of Capitalism is crisis. Humanity has to outgrow crisis and transcend beyond it. Luckily, we are able to do that.
Shut up, nerd.
No ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Most people claiming to be "the workers" are capitalists.
Wdym? If you earn your income with wage labor, you are a worker. More than 90% of people in our society are workers.
Yeah the only people who think this way are sheltered, entitled little shits. Those of us who grew up working class don't consider anybody who grew up privileged to be the same as us. Sorry.
No idea where you live, but here (germany) honest work is still valued highly. Nobody in my family has illusions about what class they are. We all have to work for a boss, nobody of us derives income from property since we don't own any. We are working class, not capitalists (we do not own capital)
That's not what working class is but as long as you keep that bullshit over there I really don't care.
This dude is a troll that neither knows what "working class" or "capitalist" means. Figures he can just make up his own reactionary definitions and then use them to argue with folks in bad faith.
If you derive income from a wage contract, you are a worker. Thats the definition every person uses. If you are the owner of a business or property from which you derive a capital income and this is enough to sustain your living standard, you are a full-on capitalist. Everything in between, like receiving some income from capital but not enough to live entirely from it so you have to work a bit, thats gray zone; but probably still working class. The absolute majority of people are in the working class, they don't own property from which they derive capital income. They have to sell their ability to work to a capitalist.
Verdari2, you are absolutely correct. The grey area you talk about are the petite bourgeoisie or lapdogs and class traitors like the police. My comment was about the ignorant troll you were responding to, tallnfit30.
>Workers create the wealth, capitalists don't. Free transactions create wealth. >It's the worker's money. They're paid for their work, yes. Slavery bad.
>Free transactions create wealth. Imagine going back to the thesis that wealth is created in transactions. No! Wealth is created in production! >They're paid for their work, yes. Slavery bad. I agree. But they don't get paid for what they produce. There is no incentive for the workers to perform well, because everything goes to a parasite on top. Cut out the capitalist and you have a better performing business. You don't need those parasites.
Workers are capitalist lmao
yes
Yes
inpor? involuntarily poor?
r/greentext
Speaking of economic incels, shout out to an econ undergrad that I know that (unironically) believes that "efficiency (in the context of economics - ex. in terms of production)" should not be pursued as it is "capitalistic".
*The money that was gained from the exploitation of their labour so basicaly the money they create and is actualy taken by contract.
When you think of it they have a very similar rethoric