In 2015, McDonalds recorded an annual profit of $1.21 billion

...

No I know that it's workers control of the means of production. the whole point of workers control is so the surplus labour is not being stolen by capitalists which means that the workers keep the profits. My point is that socialism wouldn't make much of a difference on your life despite what socialists claim. You offer it as a utopian solution that will solve our problems but it's really not. And given the risks of socialism the $240 extra per month is not worth it.

Socialism is a failed idealogy anyway and does not and will never work (maybe in post scarcity) but even if it did work it's literally nothing.

...

Profits in actual productive sectors are only getting lower and lower as capitalism moves towards a state of permanent crisis. Delicious
Also, executive pay isn't included in profits. And a surplus in socialism would go towards investment anyway, you misunderstand our goals.

Go look at any other company and do the same calculations. The profits when redistributed to workers is really not that much. The point is that you guys overplay how much of a positive impact your failed idealogy would have on the average person.

Merry Holidays.

Wow, confirmed for never struggling to pay rent/bills/buy food/feed family/pay debt

Really you C U C K S actually censored C H R I S T M A s?

This is why the left will continue to lose until it eventually dies out.

Sorry for having a good job and living below my means. Stop spending all that money on drugs and alcohol and I'm sure you'll manage to live okay.

...

This board makes pretend to be "old" leftists but the reality is they are just reddit SJW types who got bullied for being a white fucking male.

Also yes an extra $8 a day is not much even by working class standards. The difference it would make on your life is very minimal.

I'm not Holla Forums I'm a social democrat. I recognize the importance of markets and capitalism but also believe in having a decent sized welfare state and regulated financial industry.

Wow, it must be nice being able to feed your children, send them to a decent school, own a car so you can take them to school, or at least not spend lots of time commuting to work and leaving them alone in the process.
Must be nice to have had the opportunity to get a decent education because your parents could afford to do so, allowing you to get a good job so you can pay your bills.
Must be nice to live in a "meritocracy"

Good thing we already showed your maths is full of shit even if leftism did mean 'nationalise mcdonalds'.

wew

Well, yes.

Same with redistributing all the wealth of the one percent. Sure they have seemingly large disproportionate amount of wealth but when its redistributed to all it generally amounts to nothing. This is the real reason why socialists nations and communes tend to get into economic troubles. They simple do not understand economics. They are like spoiled children who want to eat down all the crops in the fields without ever learning to plow and sow and grow.

That said, they still shouldn't have as much money as they do. Their excess wealth should be used to create great public works to Hitler.

As a socialist NEET I'm sure none of hypothetical scenarios affect you.

So why does your experience represent the experience of the average work
Get some fucking perspective

You are the worst reactionaries.

Even the tiniest bit of capitalism poisons us and his theory has shown to have failed time and again.

The source in looking at says the profit in 2014 was 4. 7 billion.

Who are you quoting?

I'll stop being socialist once I get a job like a normal person

washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/03/24/millennials-like-socialism-until-they-get-jobs/

Give job now

2015 profit.

Uhh.. That's what net profit is. How are there people on this board so stupid?

Nice fucking strawman buddy.

I never said it meant that. But if we achieved socialism then corporations like McDonalds would in fact be nationalized so I don't see your point.

Exective salary/bonuses etc is salary expenditure

Franchisee profits are nothing to do with McDicks corporation's balance sheet.

Fucking end yourself. I think economics is equivalent to fucking voodoo and I still understand it better than you.

I do have perspective. I come from a lower middle class family. And it is a fact that most people don't live below their means but that's beside the point. The point is even with the things you listed the $8 per day extra you would earn under socialism wouldn't impact your life as much and you'd still struggle. But that's assuming the profit wouldn't plummet under socialidm which it certainly will do the $8 will be more like $2 or less.

Nobody is going to risk a revolution to implement a failed idealogy for an extra $8 per day.

Literally less than what you receive in benefits from the state but True Communism(TM) has no state. You do not even solve the problem of workers nearly all being too retarded to own that means of production to begin with nor are they capable of being leaders or choosing leaders through your own reasoning as all democracies and the way peoples make their choices in the world are to your dissatisfaction. Continue your intellectually bankrupt ideology though. Real intelligent people are technocrats. You will all be killed for the greater good.

Yeh, who are you getting the information from?

wsj.com/articles/mcdonalds-profit-climbs-above-expectations-1461327646

You're full of fucking shit. You're pulling it out of you ass, thats where.

This whole post is fucking bullshit.

Nigger $240 is enough to feed an extra child and some. You blatantly live off your parents and are a spoiled little cunt because you have fucking no idea how much $240 is t some people.

Nevertheless, its a completely arbitrary sum you pulled out of fucking nowhere.

So, lets multiply it by roughly 4, which is being generous to you, extremely generous, so actually its about 1000+ dollars a year, not 240, even though 240 would be a huge difference, y'know like the difference between having a not having health insurance.

PRICK

This is just one giant ad hominem you actually have not made a point, you have just spewed platitudes based on literally nothing at all.

>Lol im only stealing 18% not including francise managers, bonuses, tax evations etc of your wages stop complaining.

Now tell me who you were fucking quoting you little cretin, because it wasn't anybody was it. Maybe you are too stupid to look into information people give you, probably that's why you believe capitalism is a good thing. You can't come to leftypol with bullshit figures, because bullshit doesn't fly here like in your torture chamber.

Get the fuck out and come back when you have a shred of integrity. Also get a job, ask mommy and daddy how much $240 dollars is and you'll be all b-b-b-but thats only like half the new XBOX I want for Holidays MOM AND I DESERVE THAT XBOX SO HOW CAN PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR A LIVING CARE ABOUT $240 IT NOTHING I GET THREE TIMES THAT AT MY BIRTHDAY BLOO BLOO BLOO

you are fucking scum I wish I could rope you myself

I never said that
I was saying that if someone offered you an extra 240 a month and you thought "oh cool whatever I guess", then you probably haven't struggled. Fuck, unions struggle just to get a dollar an hour increase most of the time.

Ford profit 2015: $10.8 billion
Number of employees: 199,000 employees

Profit per employee = $54,200

Apple profit 2015: $53.4 bill
Number of employees: 80,000 employees

Profit per employee: $667,500

Get fucked, OP.

And thats not even factoring in the cumulative effect more equal wages will have on the shift of labour from making stuff for the rich to more manufacturing jobs and the increased research into making them more efficient, as well as economies of scale, driving costs in labour time and resources down and increasing standards of living.

No you don't, because if you did you would value 240 dollars. You a spoilt little shit who doesn't know anything

Your ideology doesn't have a single success story despite being tried for over 100 years. It is an ideology that appeals solely to losers which is why it will never succeed. When you put losers into power, surprise, they fuck things up immensely every time.

and sorry I was actually wrong, its 1000 dollars a month not per year. So 12,000 dollars a year, so essentially almost twice what people make right now.

Now i've asked you a bunch of times, what information were you using?

Or are you literally so full of cognitive dissonance you made up information to fit your worldview, instead of making your world view fit the information? You mean you based this whole post on your feels and made up fantasy? You are FUCKING PATHETIC.

Also just wrong, dead wrong.

Cuba. Nicaragua. Chile. Revolutionary Catalonia, Kurdistan. I could go on and on and on and on.

Could you tell me where you got your information please, instead of ignoring all of the rest of the posts which beat your bullshit completely the fuck out, because the basic facts, your basic premises, were wrong.

you mean losers like Albert Einstein? He went to all the effort of writing the essay Why Socialism? Because he was in fact a loser?

...

GET A JOB. LEARN THE TINIEST LITTLE PIECE OF HISTORY. DON'T MAKE UP FACTS TO FIT YOUR WORLDVIEW

YOU ARE SUCH A FUCKING FAGGOT

Holla Forums confirmed underage.

So much wrong with this post.

Revenue
US$ 25.413 billion (2015)[3]
Operating income
US$ 7.146 billion (2015)[3]
Net income
US$ 4.529 billion (2015)[3]
Total assets
US$ 37.939 billion (2015)[3]
Total equity
US$ 7.088 billion (2015)[3]
Number of employees
420,000 (2015)[3]

That profit number doesn't seem right at all.

Keep those brosocialist slurs out of here. We don't use faggot as an insult here. Sorry.

Thats because its more than 4 billion off.

Yes we do

My bad labeling the PPP chart I used. Funnily enough it's the Big Mac Index.

Executive pay has already been taken out.

Merry Holidays.

Come back to thread you little bitch I want to here more of your smug snivelling. I can't actually imagine what drives a person to make up their own information and then decide to believe that rather than reality

This is a relatively new phenomenon, like tucking your dick up your ass and calling yourself a girl.
Socialism and union power was strong as fuck 50 years ago and workers were actually valued.

Further proof that Holla Forums is indeed underage. Also I have a job and know history. Socialism is an incomplete ideology, a collosal failure in every way, shape and form. Jealous slack jawed dipshits can't run other peoples lives for them and end up ruining their country, what a surprise.

so its actually MORE than the 1000+ estimate I gave?

Where has OP gone? I want to slap him around like the little fuckdoll he is

Holla Forums are SJW's, otherwise they wouldn't get triggered by irrelevant bullshit.

ahahah so you are actually just going to pretend you didn't open this post with a bunch of shit you just made up AND then acted smug and self righteous about your information which was wildly inaccurate?

Jesus fucking christ how old are you? I am cringing so hard right now.

No I didn't because I am not the OP.

...

So instead of responding to my examples of socialist successes and defending your use of made up figures you are just going to repeat ad nauseum that 'socialism is le failure because I said so'

Well you are OP, but even if you aren't, then you still haven't actually made a single coherent point.

All shitholes.

>Better turn this around and act like they are the ones who are retarded by posting silly strawman "socialist until job" statistics from america where "socialist" is social democrat.

aww you're 'cringing' about something somebody wrote on a message board?

are you a 14 year old girl? Can't you hack typed letters? I'm glad I can have such an effect.

omg guys did you see when Jenna had that zit on her face omg it was SO cringe

Yeh… right the way I post on this child porn nazi board is just a total social faux pas

By whose standards?

All shitholes when started out capitalist, all improved by socialist projects.

Which capitalist counties aren't shitholes? Luxemburg?

Judging by the way you go on you probably couldn't even place Kurdistan on a map

...

It's a straw-man even though you've admitted several times what he accused you of believing, that nationalizing Mcdonalds is Socialist.

Also, if we gave McDonalds to the government, how is that the same thing as the employees getting all of the profit equally? The government would take part of that money to pay the politicians in charge of everything and they would then go on to demand that the company act in certain ways over others, albeit with less restraint because they have to follow the mob rule, but they'll still have plenty of freedom when people aren't analyzing the white house, which is like 99% of the time. So if employees wouldn't even get their full profits back out of this, how is Nationalizing mcdonalds a good representation of Socialism? You've basically traded out one capitalist scum of the earth for another, all while remaining in a market economy where the company itself is still privatized to one entity, the only difference being, that entity is somewhat receptive to mob rule.

If all of this is true, then maybe, just maybe, there's more to Socialism than big spooky government. Maybe, *gasp*, Socialism should actually entail the workers having some level of power and autonomy over their own lives and their own labor and seeing as there are multiple workers, it could only be logically said that the best way of doing this would entail, *gasp*, some form of decentralization.

Now kill yourself slowly for thinking giving McDonalds to Obama is what this board actually wants.

Hey heres an idea, why don't you make up some stats completely, pretend they are true, and then make a post about how this countries are all shitholes because of socialism?

Sound familiar?

So generous and charitable with OTHER peoples money. Socialists are such a fucking joke.

pick one fag

...

1) This has nothing to do with all my points, which by this point you are simply pretending don't exist, hands over ears LALALALAL style. Seriously, you want a debate, quote something I said in green text and then debunk it, instead of just saying random junk

2) Millenials are also the most Conservative generation in years so all you're really saying is that Conservatives are tight fisted.

First post best post

Seriously what is with a place like this having etiquette? The point in this place is that its a free for all and yet people get so up tight for something as simple as multi posting

I'm getting my jollies off smashing the fash online on this yuletide, so shut the fuck up

Top kek

Based BO

So how many of us actually live in Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Revolutionary Catalonia, and Kurdistan? I propose we get together and form a pilgrimage from these filthy white capitalist countries to these socialist paradises. Who is with me comrades?

Oh god the cringe is real.

It's not etiquette that people laugh at, it's the retardation.

...

But the point is to abolish white countries

Plenty of people have gone to places like those to fight the forces of reaction. International brigades, baby.

Woah woah woah buddy, lets not get too hasty. We just post socialist things on facebook for likes and brownie points amongst our fellow millenials, we don't actually believe this shit. We're basically LARPing as socialist revolutionaries, I don't actually want to live around brown people, I'm perfectly fine with my predominantly white middle class neighborhood thank you very much.

Where do you people think you are? You realize for the majority of people even visiting such a site as this is 'cringe'

Do you like to pretend that you aren't a faggot who trawls chans? Is this imaginary place where you came up with your statistics?

Go on then, tell me exactly how having three different things to say to one point somehow is retarded

I live in a mostly Mexican neighborhood, funny enough.

lol I live surrounded by Roma

This is how I already see whites, Holla Forums

Where do I get some of what you're on?

now this is peak liberalism

wow I'm hurt

I'm sure your arguments would be laughably retarded too but you have yet to actually produce one

...

yeah no

To the gulag

Wow! It's literally nothing!

Where do you work? 40% of US workers have jack shit saved because they don't earn a living wage.
You are thinking of capitalists, pal.
That's not how revolutions (or history) work.
Let me guess, you are into BBC pics and duck vids too.

incoming STEM masterrace post in 3… 2… 1…

40% of workers have smartphones, cars, cable tv, netflix etc.

so no. people in india live on $2 a day. If they knew how to spend and save they would have some money too instead they spend their little wealth on frivolous pleasure and we should reward them with wealth stolen from others?

Even if you were a McDonalds exec and compensated you in shares this is still implausible.

STOP MAKING UP FIGURES

You are a dumbass. You do no what a good return on a mutual fund is considered? 3% would be above average.

3% of 5k is about $150. Wowzas! I'm da porky now!

And what fucking worker can save up 5k on ~Minimum wage even working 50 hours a week?

*$150 a year on a 5k investment MINUS fees.

No it isn't. Let me explain. A socialist is not concerned with only redistributing wealth but also redistributing power. I don't know if you've ever worked at McDonald's but it isn't a good environment. The shifts are long yet the hours are sparse, you don't get to eat for free, you get the bare minimum pay and breaks, get treated like trash by managers, etc… The goal of the socialist is to empower these workers so that they might decide their working conditions for themselves.

Also, the worker of a socialist society (ideally) does not pay for their food or accommodation since they receive resources according to their needs.

That being said, I doubt McDo's would exist in a socialist society. As far as I could tell from my time working there (in a fairly poor area) most people who eat there do so out of necessity.

So you're figures that you made up get stamped all over, THEN 'you're its never worked :-(' is crushed along with your 'b-b-b-but its just for losers cos I say so'

Now that all of those things have been soundly rebuffed, all of a sudden you start moralising.

It j-j-just isn't justice. I WANT JUSTICE FOR SOCIETY THATS WHAT I FIGHT FOR

probably also calls people social justice warriors without even the teensyiest bit of self awareness.

Says the guy who doesn't know how much 240 dollars is worth

Socialism is not wealth redistribution, it is power redistribution, the redistribution of ownership, to its rightful owners, namely, the people who work to create the value, the workers, not the parasitic capitalist class.

WITH the added risk.

Sorry. We turned your your 5k investment into 2.4k.

That's just the market buddy. Better luck next year. Just work hard and save up some more.

Where are the tankies when you need them

Are you retarded? How is any point you made relevant in anyway?

Do you have any conceivable idea how fucking useful that would be to me or anyone in my family you cunt?

lol wat?

is this even english?

lol wat?

ownership of capital is wealth. so you are really just making nonsensical wordplay argument by pretending something is something else by rephrasing it

the people who work to create value were compensated with wages. they were already paid. just because a capitalist let you operate his machinery doesn't mean you now own it.

stop being jelly of other's people wealth

So how did the capitalist come to own this machinery?

...

He worked, saved and invested. Just like you.

...

KEK

who worked, saved, and invested.

He didn't take it from another capitalist while telling "WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION!!!!"

...

No its entirely different, you are redistributing the means to get value, not the value itself. You are redistributing the factory, not the produce. The produce is the property of whoever creates it

I'm detecting at least 2 Petazizeks of ideology in this thread

Kicked your ass three times too

The wealth that you earned for your boss is compensated for by the wage you received. Just because you operate his machinery does not mean you own it.

Defoo yourself molymeme

statistically not the case

statistically not the case

Ignoring this factual inaccuracies, you are saying labour entitles you to ownership?

Capitalist works and gains ownership, worker works but somehow should not gain ownership? That doesn't make any sense

you are such a fucking cuck

Moralfaggotry at it's most hypocritical
So suddenly we should Care about the feelings and perspectives of saint business owner but not the literal billion other people who are exploited and damaged by their actions?

If we're going to be using a Marxian analysis (which you should use if you're debunking Marxism), Capital is defined as the "self expansion of value", for that explicit purpose. Accumulation for accumulation sake. Workers receiving less than their fear share is just one of the methods of Capital for its expansion, it does not encapsulate all of them.

Blatantly false, Chapters 26 - onwards of Capital Vol 1 illustrate the violence that surrounded the inception of Capitalism.

Workers gain wage which can be exchanged for ownership of capital. So workers do gain ownership. But so many of them instead of saving up spend frivolously on ownership of iphones and tvs instead of productive machinery or tools.

You were listing all the things that people could cut out of there life and then use the savings to invest and get a return on investment. Even eliminating all the expenses you listed would only save you a pittance and then investing that pittance would only return you marginal returns over an extended period of time.

Does that make sense bub? If you want me to be your financial adviser you're going to have to pay me.

comrade please

Fuck you you fucking classcuck

I have made very many.

You literally haven't made a single one.

You have said that Mcdonalds doesn't actually make very much profit which was WRONG

You have said redistributing this profit would not amount much difference to peoples lives which is WRONG

You then said Socialism doesn't work. You were then provided with several examples of working socialism. You did not debunk a single one of these examples.

If you think your broad brush stroke 'all shitholes' counts as an answer you have absolutely no intellectual integrity whatsoever.

Anyhow, this answer was then debunked, by explaining that they were shitholes, but socialism improved their shitholeyness, to this you made no response.

Repeatedly you said socialism was for losers yet you could not explain why Albert Einstein was a socialist. Or Jeff Monson for that matter, or Bertrand Russel, or Leo Tolstoy.

Then you started moralizing. Which is never going to be anything more than just moralising.

So please, feel free to make a real rebuttal any time now

or we could just care about the feelings and perspective of everybody by allowing them to organise themselves and cooperate without you moralising and attempting to steal from one group and give to another under some retarded monkey logic that makes no sense and has been proven to not work

Brosef please.

And why should we respec t bourgy laws regarding property to begin with?

You are merely stating that the cappie has the factory not why he should mantain ownership

So you agree pay is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with being fairly compensated for the work you did.

then how come my pay fluctuates due to inflation? If I am always being paid the correct amount how come it changes every day even though my work is the same every day and the demand for it is roughly the same?

Except workers cooperative and comunal ownership have roved themself to be more succesful

Learn macroeconomics classcuckk

this is literally begging the question by defining the capital is be inherently pointless

real people expand capital to secure for themselves their financial future for their children. real capital has utility beyond expanding itself i.e. you can sell you factory to buy a yacht and send your children to university.

so your definition is bust from the start by being unrooted from reality.

you were the one banging on about 'muh its not justice' don't talk to me about moralising you dishonest little cunt

if your productive capability is small that you can only save a small amount by working at the maximum of your capability, that justifies you taking from others who are more productive?

what's the point of being skilled and productive when those who are not can just take from you under the guise of made up oppression?

But you have yet to explain why I i should abide to the property right laws and let the cappie "sexure a future" at the expense of myself and my family

Property as an object exists in the universe regardless of law.

Ownership on the other hand, requires the law.

But the alternative would be legalised theivery. Why would anybody labour the land to produce food, or labour in a factory to produce machines when all his labour can be taken away by anyone?

Without laws of private ownership you would only have laws of the jungle. Surely no human society can thrive in that environment when all are out to murder others.

No one is taking anything from the capitalist, its the capitalist keeping the surplus value of others using the bourgeoise law

You are so retarded. It doesn't mean that the capitalists driving motivation was accumulation, although it often is, it means value that accrues for no tangible reason other than law. Lending at interest for example, no tangible product is created, yet somehow the lender accumulates wealth simply for having this abstract value in the first place. He does no work at all.

Similarly, owning a factory, simply owning it, not managing it, makes you money, the only thing that makes value in this case is the legal definition that says you are entitled to a cut, but you didn't actually make shit.

not me

not me

not me

sorry you mistake me for someone else.

maybe ask the mod the have thread ID for less confusion but otherwise i can not help you.

so you just call organisations that you don't like "shallow and vulgar" then pretend that is sufficient justification that it is bad?

even private ownership there is no incentive for any kind of labour because anybody could just steal everything from you.

At that point you would have madmax style laws of the jungle dystopia.

Clearly no society can thrive in such an environment, and no society has.

Lol

That is what bourgeoise law is

I generate X amount of value and the cappie keeps a part because of property rights

Good, spontaneous order is prefferable to the legalized thievery that is bourgeoise law

Read proudhon or locke, there are several ways to determine property, bourgeoise law is not the only one, classcuck

YOU were the one moralizing you useless faggot
And shut the fuck up with this liberal 'Everyones feelings matter' shit not only have capitalists not given a fuck about workers feelings historically they've had zero issue fucking killing them the second they become inconvenient. Especially here in the US.

ahahaha man you are such a cretin. You can't even own up to typing words on the internet.

In any case, you say I didn't make a coherent point, yet this repetition shows clearly I made several coherent points, so the post which definitely was you, which you can't weasle your way out of

was, like your other points WRONG. DEAD FUCKING WRONG

Imagine being such a coward you could not even admit to typing on the internet. Dear me

We aren't talking about Capital in terms of individuals, we are talking about system wide.

Marx wouldn't define that as Capital unless it's going back into the production process directly. If you save up money to take care of your family, this is not directly being invested in labour or means of production and is not Capital. The reason it's "accumulation for accumulation" sake is because we are a commodity producing society. Our needs are imposed on each other through commodities. This with our need to reproduce ourselves and create wealth breeds a system where people don't get together and decide what to produce in accordance with those who will consume it. As was said in another thread, "the steel beckons for the creation of more steel". Our system is predicated on uncoordinated expansion, and uncoordinated expansion takes place. Like , it leads to cases where value is created, but there was no tangible reason other than the system is set up that way.

It is shallow and vulgar. Once again, read Chapters 26 onwards to get a good idea of the violence carried out by the State to establish Capitalism.

no it is not arbitary. it is set by willing buyer and seller. In a market with multiple buyers a seller has the option to choose the highest wage available for himself and the seller has the option to choose the lowest cost of production the intersection of these two demands is the market value. so the price here is rooted in reality, the physical availability of labour and capital.

just because you close your eyes suddenly machineries dont come into existence.

I don't agree with expansionary monetary policy myself but if you want the mechanical reason for it then it's because the bankers are jewing everyone.

workers cooperatives work by mutual agreement.

socialist wealth redistribution work by coercion.

they are not comparable

sorry comrade

socialists justify theft by claiming that capitalists 'oppress and exploit' the working class when in reality they work together to mutual benefit.

so trying to pass that as justice if false moralising and should stop.

read:

I'm literally crying with laughter, hes basically admitting co-ops are good but can't bring himself to admit he is wrong

Tell me nigger why socialist experiments have nearly always included co-operative management, indeed, why so many have been CENTERED ENTIRELY AROUND CO-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT ?

AHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA

the surplus value is generated by his capital.

nobody is going to spend $100,000,000 on a factory is all surplus production must be given to labourers. in this case no capital will accrue and you end up with prehistory level economy ie. ooga booga stone cut woods yes

nice false dichotomy fag

you can stablish property rights with usage or communalism

fuck off classcuck

good, i am not a socialist, i am a market anarchist, mutualism being the prefferable kind

good

No we justifying seizing the means of production because it is what will be best for us, the majority of people, instead of what is best for the capitalists, less than 1% of the population.

This isn't a moral argument. It isn't based on morals, its based on me and mine taking what we can.

After that, such a system will drastically reduce crime (like in Cuba) and other social ills considered objectively undesirable. You can quibble that that amounts to moralism, you might have a point, but really I just want everyone to have lots of stuff and not be under threat.

So you think Hillary Clinton and George Soros work for the Mutual benefit of the working population? Both of these people are capitalists

no, the surplus value is generated by the labourer

good, maybe no one wants or need that factory

value accrues for a tangible reason because stuff are useful.

so this point is invalid

if you stop thinking in term of money and instead in term of actual useful stuff, then this is completely false.

money is just an accounting tool. when a bank lend you money, what it is doing is lending you accumulated value. if you borrow to buy a machine, what is happening is the equivalent of the bank buying a machine, then lending you the machine.

the use of said machine creates tangible product. and lending allows a person with insufficient capital to produce at the higher production power made possible by capital i.e machinery.

the lender accumulates wealth in this case because if he doesn't otherwise, there is literally no incentive for him to lend you money or machinery. in this alternative universe the only people actually producing would be people who have both the ability and the capital which would be much fewer than in the first case where if you are capable you can borrow.

you made the factory, i.e. the equipment that provides improved productive capability

So after reading the annual reports we can see that if every employee of McDonald's that was making less than $15/hr was given a raise to $15/hr then McDonald's would only have to charge ~3% more for its products to maintain the same net profit.

pretty neat

A very large sum of money is deducted from the profit total in the form of the managerial class that shouldnt exist.

powerful counter argument. From which socialist book did you learn of this technique?

you work his machinery and split the proceed at the market rate between the owner of the capital and the labourer

and the workers shed a tear every morning for his boss' feelings?

get real comrade

those points weren't made in response to myself. i don't keep track of other parallel discussion happening in a thread so i can poke my head in it.

stay classy

what i mean is that money saved and invested into capital can both generate wealth and itself be sold in exchange for other useful things like food or a yacht. I didn't mean that yachts are 'means of production'.

the price system in a free market allow an arbitrarily large collection of humans to decide what to produce in accordance with demand and supply without centralised direction. so this point is invalid

i already disputed that claim

Just because X did Y for reason Z does not mean Z is bad, it means that Y is bad. Violence should be blamed on the state or statism or the moral and cultural zeitgeist at the time that alllowed violence to be perpetrated in pursuit of a goal.

so if we did this all throughout the economy we could drastically raise people's incomes (and standard of living) without effecting prices? porky would just have to accept lower profits?
almost like what the Keynesian socdems want?
I actually disagree with them completely, and many marxists think profits call the tune in economic growth, but it's funnier that op be incorrect

You're thinking of revenue caprade

people organising themselves is good.

just because they organise themselves willingly a certain way, does not justify coercion to force others to organise that way also.

can you comprehend this simple point comrade?

...

so in a socialist society a gang rape will be permissible? after all, 9 out of 10 people enjoy a gangrape.

and the socialist reveal himself to simply be a jealous thief with no regards for others.

gl comrade

What is useful about the workers having to sell themselves to obtain their means of subsistence. What is useful about some bank that sits on its ass while people give the money for being a bank?

Actually your whole post could be refuted simply by this: we understand the USE of the function within the current paradigm, but we are asking about the use of the paradigm itself. This is why I called you "vulgar", you are unrefined in your analysis. You look at surface level phenomenon.

Right. And I have to work his machinery because I lack my own. I lack my own, because the state enforces property rights.

You can't separate Capitalism from the State you vulgar fuck. I'm not going to blame it on "statism" if statism was the lever of Capital.

You disputed nothing, you justified the use of lending in the paradigm but not the paradigm itself.

No it isn't. You just confirmed what I said - in your "le free market" which has never existed, we reproduce ourselves through uncoordinated commodity exchange. Just because you rephrase what I said doesn't mean it's invalid.

why are you resorting to "voluntaryist" arguments? can you argue for people's self interest or something, because you should know we don't agree with property as some inherent right and it's not a productive discussion at this point

Alright so using revenue instead, $25.413 Billion, and trying to come up with the same profitability, that's every worker getting a paycheck of $57625. Of course labor isn't their only expense but it's obviously still an improvement from minimum wage or less.

I'd argue that $50,000 or whatever still isn't ideal but it's definitely enough to support one duder and just a little more could hold up a family.
Then there's the fact that a cooperative would be less profitable because they're not designed around appeasing shareholders, so it'd go back up.

Would you sanction gang rape? Would you enjoy gang rape? This says more about you than me. No I would not sanction gang rape, because it would lead to the likelihood of me and mine being raped in the future, because it would create that kind of society

Jealous thief? No, I am specially taking the tools to work. I want to work, but capitalists insist on charging me to work.

You do admit though, that co-operative management is a good thing yes?

Ha dude you are so btfo in every post why are you still digging. You said co-operatives are good. Hang around this board for 5 minutes you will see that co-operatives are what we want for the world.

Oh and your whole bullshit about forcing it is ludicrous. You really think capitalism is something that everybody voluntarily accepts? You think the people of Chile accepted it? You think the people of Nicargua accepted it?

We didn't even accept it, it was enforced by a State. As Proudhon said, to criticize Capital is to criticize the State pure and simple.

workers having to work to survive is a rule made by the universe not the capitalists, so take it up with god or something

you don't have to use a bank.

people banks because clearly banks are useful to them

as opposed to you who can't even see basic surface level effect that's right before your eyes

it' pretty rich to be insulting others coming from you

you lack your own because you haven't gotten off you ass to build one.

your logic is basically "the only reason i haven't got any money is because other people will stop me from taking other people's money"

if this is the basic of your argument then I have to conclude that comrades are much much more stupid that i thought

the socialist state is the biggest of all the states so again this is just rich

which is far superior than waiting for the commissar to tell me to produce 2 bread a day and no more even though we need 10 to live.

I never said "what is the use in work", I said what is the use in the workers WORKING FOR THE CAPITALIST.

Right, useful within the paradigm. You're kind go missing the point.

What?

Please spell properly. Your already incoherent points are becoming more and more incoherent by the minute.

My logic is that from Capitalism inception, the State was the protector of Capital and property rights. Capital is theft, property is theft, it has always been theft and it has always been deeply intertwined with the State.

I'm not a Marxist-Leninist, and the United States has military bases in over 200 countries.

I don't advocate for central planning. I believe in market anarchism combined with decentralized planning for shit like health care and roads.

the ideology is strong in this one

best post not sure how he can even respond to this

Holy shit no wonder you're not successful. Goddamn. You've given up before even trying. You're no better than the black man who simply blames whitey for all his problems and never betters himself. Spend all the time you waste whining about rich people and teach yourself skills to make yourself wealthy instead. That would require effort though, much easier to just have a whine on the internet and delude yourself into thinking you're fighting the power. How are you not SJWs again?

They owe you nothing.

>>>/gulag/

And neither do we owe them the respect of their property rights.

We're coming for that toothbrush whitey.

HAHAHAHA $240 EXTRA A MONTH IS "NOT THAT MUCH" HAHAHA

fuck off deluded scumbag, you've never had to struggle

Saged

also

except the fact that wage labourers abide by property rights

the moment wage labourers decide not to abide, their muh privilege are over

That isn't Stirner.

because workers make more working for the capitalist than they do working for themselves

what paradigm is this? the paradigm where private property is a thing?

k

gl comrade

mine if space and is not capital.

so this example is completely invalid.

You will always be a loser and you have no one to blame but yourself. Seriously, whining solves nothing, do what I did and take the time you're wasting and learn a skill like programming. The rich are just a scapegoat you use to justify your own laziness and ineptitude. Why try to tear someone down instead of be inspired to build yourself up? You're acting like those fat insecure cunts that hate attractive women for being better than them.

Kek, why don't we just cut the Capitalist out of the equation then, and the workers can make even more?

The Capitalist paradigm we've been in for a few hundred years now.

Is this English? I'm going to ask a question and I'm being earnest, is English your first or second language?

Then start a co-op. Forcing the entirety of socialism on other people is unnecessary. There's nothing stopping you from making a co-op in the capitalist system. If worker owned means of production is really all you care about then the answer already exists within capitalism and you're free to do it.

You implying that just because someone has problems with our system, they're some loser who has no aspirations or goals speaks volumes about the ideology you bathe in every night.

Again, we COMING FOR THE TOOTHBRUSH WHITEY.

succking the dick of the cappie won't get you far, at much you will become his lapdog

hence why you are called a classcuck

because workers don't have capital. if they did, they would be a capitalist…

is this the paradigm that had allowed the greatest income for the average worker since the beginning of the history of humanity?

Mine is space and is not capital. There was a single typo.

You're starting to get it now friend. Keep going.

the mine is the subject of labour, read the theory of the productive forces faggot

See:

Want for socialism drops with success.

People aren't born a capitalist. The importance is capital. So the question of why you don't cut out the capitalist is because you need the capital.

it does not suggest in anyway that the workers should just own the capital. workers can own whatever they work for.

You've been defeated by your own mind. You've damned yourself to a life of burger flipping and cursing those who had the balls to make something of themselves.

the value from gold in the ground is from the land and belongs to everybody

the value from digging gold out of the ground is from labour and belong to labourers

the value from the improved ability for labourers to dig gold out of the ground via equipment belongs if from capital and belongs to the capitalist

this is not a difficult concept to grasp

...

nothing of that matters, you have been defeated by the capitalist

now you base your life on capitalism, all your relations with other people are based on it

congrats, you've alienated yourself

yet only the worker was able to extract it
it's of the worker's

only in so far as it was the labour of the capitalist who created the means of labouring

as at the end, the means of labour are created by other workers

no cuck, go read a book

Growth happens under all systems. This is not an argument for capitalism.

see
youtube.com/watch?v=W6QAqU2KpaY

FUCK YOU KILL WHITEY

Right, so I want to abolish capital. What is so hard to understand that?

So we collectivize the MOP? I don't know what's hard to understand.

If busting my butt to crawl out of a lower class existence into a comfortable middle class one is the result of being "defeated by the capitalist" then I am completely fine with that.

I guess the difference between owning something and operating something is incomprehensible to you.

i guess there is some hope for you yet

people aren't born workers or capitalists. they can change between. you understand this, right?

im sure they do comrade

Okay, have fun with that. We aren't fine with that.

Those who operate it should own it, I don't give a fuck "who owns it".

And Capitalism is a dynamic between workers and Capitalist, both need to be present for it to function and the former in a plentiful amount.

how does it feel to know that, working ina co-operative manner makes working easier,
again you cucked yourself by falling for the "pull up your bootstraps" meme

people out there are starting co-ops and making their life easier with mutual aid and you are not taking part of it

again, you alienated yourself

by the grace of law, property ownership is an illusion granted by a state

except everyone is born with the ability to work, yet not everyone is a cappie, you understand this right?

fucking M-Ls ruined everything

When you flip burgers for a living and blame all your problems on the rich boogeyman these sorts of things do tend to fly over your head.

You're that faggot kid that kept video games he borrowed from other people aren't you?

...

a socialist once again reveals himself a selfish thief

look at this dumb cuck thinking everyone is alienated just like him

we do not blame the capitalists, we blame the system, it doesnt stops at the hatred of the person

They're also out of a job. Making work easier doesn't mean shit when your shop shuts down due to worker incompetence.

reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/5hfx63/famous_marxistrun_coop_vegan_restaurant_fails/

What's the point of your image? That is growth. The red examples highlighted are less than the black, albeit, but I'm not the one justifying economic systems based on growth. By your logic, those systems would be justified by the fact that there was any growth at all (since that's what justifies capitalism according to you). Did you even watch the video?

Also, since we're using GDP per capita as if it's some indicator of quality of life, I'm sure you'll find Saudi Arabia ($25,962 per capita GDP) a much better place to live in than Chile ($15,732 per capita GDP).

without property ownership what would be an incentive for a person to make and obtain stuff?

why don't they save and invest?

The survival of humanity is not dependant on playing video games, so I see no need to collectivize it.

Kek, property is theft. I can keep going in circles with you. I already explained to you how Capitalism has been intricately linked to the state from its very inception. There was no point it was not. The State is a coercive and all it protects is theft.

k

cute, would hold any ground if capitalists ran business never failed

you are such a dumb classcuck that failed to rememeber that hierarchical restaurants fail all the time

basically you don't even have an argument, try again classcuck

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

personal benefit?

why don't we collectivize the productive forces?

If he really wants to read on Co-ops.

so you're saying it's okay if in a socialist state an average person makes 0.0000000000001% more than 10000 years ago while in a capitalist state they make 100000000000000000% more as long as there is non-zero growth?

enjoy your paradise comrade ill keep living in my imperfect reality

no one here is advocating for a marxist-leninist regime

you can decide to be a cuck and misunderstand the argument and grasp at strawman, or understand this is a fundamental different

thx fam

freedom is slavery

you're a true comrade

well, amerifats all the time mention the phrase freedom isn't free :v)

You know George Orwell was a socialist, right?

no lol. it's the comrades who came up with strawman like

No. That's what you're saying.

I live in the real world where quality of life matters (infant mortality, individual freedom, access to health care, etc), not in your world where GDP per capita ignores income inequality go away and magically makes an Islamist theocracy like Saudi Arabia a better place to live in than a country like Chile.

You knew he was a socialist, went to fight for socialists in spain, realised how retarded socialism is, came back and wrote 1984, right?

You do understand that 1984 proves most radical left theorists right, right?

Wrong. He was a socialist even when writing 1984.
Gold stein = Trotsky
Snowball = Trotsky

I didn't just say it has just increased the wages, but that it has maximised the quality of life of the average workers

to quote my self:

the word greatest implies maximum, not just an increase.

they literally teach this in fourth grade in a cambodian school staffed by single woman

Anti-stalinism =\= anti-stalinism retard

He was a socialist until his death. There was no point where he dropped socialism. 1984 was specifically written against the Soviet Union because George Orwell was an anarchist hurr durr. You realize, he wrote an entire book on how fucking awesome revolutionary Catalonia was, called "Homage to Catalonia"?

...

Anti-socialism*

Fuck.

...

top kek, you really are utterly fucking stupid

you are now claiming a novel doesnt prove something, yet you decided to imply that, after he fighting in spain decided to write 1984 as if somehow the failure of spain changed him

so which one is it faggot

You've never read 1984 if you think it's a criticism of socialism and not just the Soviet Union (and other totalitarians pretending to be socialists). Orwell wrote an entire book lauding the Spanish anarchists.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia

And the Islamic theocracy of Saudi Arabia has increased GDP per capita more than the capitalist democracy of Chile.

slippery as always comrade

see

do you even know what a strawman is?

Agreed, good thing socialist organization isn't about whining but about promoting radical socio-economic change, often through violent means, not begging for scraps or seeking compromise like rightwingers do. We disregard the well-being of the ruling class entirely.
The only one whining here is you about how taking people's property is immoral and stuff and how absentee ownership is somehow beneficial to production.
I take it must be your first time on Holla Forums because your arguments are straight out of reddit.

What are you even trying to say? I never claimed anything was. or wasn't "real socialist", I said he was a socialist until his death. You realize that there is more than just "the socialism". You are one of the stupidest people I've talked to in a long time, thank you for making me feel good about myself.

the act of writing something can prove that a person believes something.

the actual work of fiction itself does not.

holy shit even my 4 year old child could comprehend this

the first thing socialists wanna do is forcefully take other people's stuff.

but that doesn't make them totalitarian right comrade :^)

top lel

prove is yours first :v)

What are you trying to say? Show any proof that Orwell was not a socialist until his death. He wrote Animal Farm in 1945 prior to fighting in Catalonia. You are completely wrong and desperately trying to save face.

Because Capitalism is totalitarianism.

This. Prove its yours, I work it. I don't care if you paid for it, what's sacred about that? Anyway, you're shifting goal post. Orwell was a socialist, plain and simple.

Fuck it, the tankies are right about gulags.

the spanish civil war was before 1945

My mistake, that should read prior to publishing about Catalonia.

see, right there is your problem. you want handouts. you have all the envy of others, but lack the motivation to get it yourself or even compete for it. so you change the rules to fit your weakness. learn this and your life will change

No one cares, stop moralizing.

and freedom is slavery

das right comrade

We are quite removed from the original topic.
Look, you come into this thread with your original post about McDonald's profits. It turned out to be bullshit, but instead of owning up to this you change the discussion to workers' ownership. You then can't come up with a justification for the welfare-entitlement mentality that the boss has in skimming profits from the work of others, so you change the discussion again to something about George Orwell. Then you construct a strawman argument against Marxism-Leninism, even though most people here disagree with it. I lost track of how many times you switched topics when you got BTFO'd.

I want you to stick around on this board so that you'll get rid of your liberal talking points and actually learn something about socialism.

You'll learn that socialism doesn't need government intervention.
You'll learn that free markets don't actually exist.
You'll learn that we don't care about welfare and taxes, but ownership.
You'll learn that we don't care about how much wealth people have, but how that wealth was acquired.
You'll learn that there is a difference between private property and personal property, and that socialists support property rights for the latter.

I can tell this is your first time on Holla Forums. Lurk more, learn something, and come back with better arguments and non-fallacies.

Animal Farm was written in 1945. You are a mong.

but freedom aint free, right :v)

nicely done gomrade

You are completely wrong. You can't offer up any proof that George Orwell was not a libertarian socialist until the end of his life.

the justification is the boss owns the capital, which he worked for to create. you know machines don't fall from the sky when you want it to just so you can use it, right?

opinions vs facts
the end

He didn't necessarily work to create it. He could've inherited the money, he could've gotten a grant from the State or a loan from a bank.

It's an opinion that you think someone is entitled to the work of others. Kill yourself, you've been utterly BTFO.

das right. 1984 was about stalinism. real socialism(TM) has never been tried :^)

then his parents worked for it.

then blame statism not capitalism

which he will work to payoff

meanwhile you want it for free

Who creates the machines?

So have you just given up, and you're just going to spout memes. I never said "real socialism", but you are meshing all socialist strains of thought into a single one. Do you realize how retarded that is? It'd be like me lumping in a Post-Keynesian with a Monetarist because they're both Capitalist.

lel, stay utterly btfo cuckold

Don't care. Work is not passed on.

They are intertwined, and always have been. Always.

I want to collectivize it.

maybe the capitalist. maybe somebody else.

either the workers do own it and sold the machine, so the workers work for a capitalist and were compensated for with wage

I've seen somewhat decent anti-socialist arguments on Holla Forums before. This is not one of them.

which of these strains is the One True Socialism that has never been tried but guaranteed to work 100%?

I'm not that guy but I can tell you've lost when you're resorting to sarcasm without addressing his points. Just lurk more and come back with better arguments.

I never claimed anything like that. I'm done responding to your memes, have fun. I'm pretty sure you're baiting at this point.

statista.com/statistics/208917/revenue-of-the-mcdonalds-corporation-since-2005/

you know, you wouldn't be all bent if that wasn't a fact

"Then his parents worked for it" reread that statement then contemplate how retarded it sounds.

Jejjjjjjj

What's the difference?

The reported profit of a company doesn't necessarily relflect how much money was made.

Companies hide their profit all the time by charging too much for overhead.

For an example look up how Steve speilburg was ripped of over directing close encounters of the 3rd kind.

He asked for a share of the profits instead of revenue. Hollywood movies rarely make profit on paper

Is nobody going to address the fact that he pulled the "you'll be successful if you learn something like programming" card?

You are literally retarded

wsj.com/articles/mcdonalds-plans-shareholder-payouts-of-18-billion-to-20-billion-1401284961

cut these niggas out and then we can start talking

next thing you know, you'll be telling us to learn economics. Do you even know how to test hypotheses?

No?

Austrians aren't taken seriously in any econ department. All they do is wax poetic on 18th-century moral philosophy. They wouldn't know a "predictive model" if it bit them on the dick, and most of them have never taken a real analysis class.
They're a rung below the Marxians, who base their entire work on overt opposition to the capitalist order, and they're sore as hell about it. "Learn economics" really is the most insidious line.

Are you the same guy who made up the figures in OP? George Orwell was a Libertarian Socialist

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell's_list

"was" being the keyword here.

...

hand them over or we'll take them by force

You forgot about when he pretended not to be himself in order to distance himself from his weak post

WEW

...

It says it in the same article you linked, you tool. The USSR became everything a libertarian socialist would have hated. I'm not surprised.

...

Wow, an obvious teenager baited Holla Forums into a 250+ posts long thread.

Christ kid, you could at least lurk.

Just turn towards classical liberalism (NOT libertarianism). It's far better at improving the standards of living of everybody and it doesn't exclude the possibility of a welfare state either.

Do you think you wasted my time? I do this all day anyway

You need a car in the US to work. That's not at all luxury.

Netflix is like 10 dollars a month. I'm not including the cost of internet because again it's a necessity now. Tons of employers don't even accept paper apps.

As for smart phone well you need a phone and cell service isn't cheaper than a land line anymore.

The only thing you can kind of argue is a luxury is Netflix. I'm sure you're not a complete hypocrite and never indulge in any fun.

Me too
t. CTH failson

Are we pretending inheritance and powerful connections doesn't exist

This. If they owe us nothing, what obligations do we have from taking anything from them?

Looks like someone has some reading to do

Oh boy, it's this shit again.

And these are the people who call us economic illiterates.

...

In 2015, McDonalds spent $20 Billion on stock buybacks and dividends. If this was put towards labor, each worker would get 47619 extra per year. That's an extra 3968 a month, and an about 250% increase in average yearly pay.

Go fuck yourself classcuck

...

I love how capitalists always shift the goalposts by proclaiming that today's capitalism can't be compared to yesterday's capitalism as a system, and then instantly conflate the wide variety of socialist/anarchist ideologies into a single authoritarian meme.

Shift to market socialism you cuck.

It is told of Rothschild that, seeing his fortune threatened by the Revolution of 1848, he hit upon the following stratagem: “I am quite willing to admit,” said he, “that my fortune has been accumulated at the expense of others, but if it were divided to-morrow among the millions of Europe, the share of each would only amount to five shillings. Very well, then, I undertake to render to each his five shillings if he asks me for it.”

Having given due publicity to his promise, our millionaire proceeded as usual to stroll quietly through the streets of Frankfort. Three or four passers-by asked for their five shillings, which he disbursed with a sardonic smile. His stratagem succeeded, and the family of the millionaire is still in possession of its wealth.

It is in much the same fashion that the shrewd heads among the middle classes reason when they say, “Ah, Expropriation! I know what that means. You take all the overcoats and lay them in a heap, and every one is free to help himself and fight for the best.”

But such jests are irrelevant as well as flippant. What we want is not a redistribution of overcoats, although it must be said that even in such a case, the shivering folk would see advantage in it. Nor do we want to divide up the wealth of the Rothschilds. What we do want is so to arrange things that every human being born into the world shall be ensured the opportunity in the first instance of learning some useful occupation, and of becoming skilled in it; next, that he shall be free to work at his trade without asking leave of master or owner, and without handing over to landlord or capitalist the lion’s share of what he produces. As to the wealth held by the Rothschilds or the Vanderbilts, it will serve us to organize our system of communal production.

The day when the labourer may till the ground without paying away half of what he produces, the day when the machines necessary to prepare the soil for rich harvests are at the free disposal of the cultivators, the day when the worker in the factory produces for the community and not the monopolist — that day will see the workers clothed and fed, and there will be no more Rothschilds or other exploiters.

No one will then have to sell his working power for a wage that only represents a fraction of what he produces.

t. never was hungry a day in his life or lived off scraps

This if from the conquest of bread no?

...

Devil's advocate here, but why should the worker get the product of the labour rather than the capitalist?

After all, both the MOP and the worker's labour are necessary, so why do we decide that the reward ought to go to the worker?

workers also made the means of production.

presumably using other means of production, or capitalist-provided natural resources, or worker-provided natural resources.

In the first case, those MoP creating MoP must have been provided by a capitalist (so it's the same question).

In the second case, you can either argue that the capitalist has no inherent right over the natural resources, which is fair enough.

In the third case, there is no capitalist involved at all and the worker (working off his own natural resources and labour) has sold the MoP to the capitalist and received his fair share in return

in any case, it's not an argument for giving the the product of the labour to workers as a group; there's no reason why the worker who made the burger-making machine should be given the burgers any more than the operator of the burger-making machine should be given the burgers

I'm not trying to say that the capitalist deserves the whole fruit of the labour, but I don't see why the worker has a complete right over it either

Why do we decide that it ought to go to the capitalist?

...

I'm not saying it should, i'm simply wondering why we decide to make it go to the worker instead of somehow splitting it

the wage system seems to be a fine way of splitting it, if there were some way of objectively calculating how much each party is owed (rather than now where the capitalist decides with the help of market forces how much to pay the worker, which can obviously be unfair)

all means of production are made by workers, and all natural resources are extracted by workers, by definition.

No one working for an employer is receiving their fairshare. The first MoP were not made by self-employed workers, but by feudal peasants and slaves.

Yeah

the natural resources extracted seems to have been conducted in a way where the capitalist says
or he says
This seems fair, because in the first example the worker owns the land (and decides to sell it to the highest bidder capitalist) and in the second case, the capitalist owns the land and the worker gets his wage

Why not?

It's obvious that people in charge of large companies (like McDonalds) get paid much more than they should for the work that they do - but the idea that you can't work for someone and receive a fair share seems wrong to me

I don't really see the problem with this, except that it's difficult to calculate who should get paid how much, and it's hard to know in advance what investments in MoP or wages are required

Ok but why does the capitalist own the land? They're not using it. They don't live on it directly, or else they wouldn't be able to get natural resource out of it.

They're not getting the full value of the product they produce. The value of the capital is what the capitalist paid for the capital. But the value of labor is everything added to the commodity in production. Here's a video that helps explain it
youtu.be/a1WUKahMm1s?t=30m21s

also, a capitalist doesn't have to be a manager. they could just as easily be a stockholder and have nothing to do with production.

can you at least read, please?

thats literally the point.
get a job and receive the spoils for all that you create

it's literally their job, and they are most likely the most capable for the job

Also, this