As a worker you're being exploited and you are not receiving all the value that your labor produces...

So Holla Forums, which one is it?

Both, shockingly. That's how much money some people are making.

the second is partly true, don't listen to third worldists though

and post more tits

Both? These two things are not mutually exclusive.

It can be both at the same time. You can still benefit form developed economies as worker relatively compared to developing economies that provide you with raw materials that allow your position in labor aristocracy.

unironically FTFY

Okay, but the incentive to working class people to support communism is that they'll keep more of their wealth.

So, if communism was achieved, would the working class have a net gain if they keep all their labor's value, but lose the wealth from third world exploitation?

This one is true.

This is not true. The third world is exploited for resources, but this is to the benefit of porkies. You see, in the end, we are all workers. Eventually wages will be equal all over the world. This is globalism. Porky doesn't pay you more out of the kindness of his heart. He does it because he has to.

Why would a worker in the first world support a global average which would entail living in a packed cement apartment, while eating two meals a day?

Why do you assume that global wages would be lower instead of rising to standards of west with economic development as its already happening in developing economies?

You're mistaking globalism (another rebrand of capitalism) for communism (which applied worldwide is called internationalism). The poster is saying that eventually your wages under capitalism will level out across the planet, removing your advantage.

Well just looking at energy consumption, and how dependent virtually all material wealth is derived from it's consumption, it's impossible.

I don't have the study, but if energy was consumed around the world at the same rate as the west, global consumption would increase by a factor of 12.

Looking at this from a different perspective, do you see the argument for international communism making you better off? That is a lot more output.

my bad.

No, communism in a single region would seem more advantageous from an objective stand point.

Considering the proportion of the wealth hoarded by Porky, Yes, they still win.

Consumption of consumer electronics is hardly something that you would describe as western standard of living… It refers to public healthcare and education(that are already de-facto in most developing countries).

...

Yeah on paper (actually some database) they're worth that much. But if we look at global resources produced vs resources consumed, it's not the case.

I'm having trouble explaining it, because i've never made this argument. But most of that money is made from speculating third order derivatives and shit like that. It's not like their wealth exists in reality. So even though they have an enormous amount of money in an abstract way, simply averaging their wealth with the bottom 3 billion people will not average out living standards like you think.

If you have a trillion dollars, you can't buy a trillion dollars worth of resources if they don't exist.

Then there's the problem that you're going to be constantly undermined by capitalist nations, and will be getting embargoed and subverted at every opportunity. Electrical output is parallel to economic output.

that's a choice
its always the same thing

the other day i asked someone
im telling you faggots
if you don't make a mech, you'll never be able to kill people which you despise.

i don't know what's going on here, but I like those asian gals you fags were posting.

If you completely change the relationships within society, if you change he incencitives, then people behavior change and the consumption is nt as high. Would we still buy as much shit without 24/24 advertisment? Would as much food be thrown away during the production process without the cult of profit?
Behind all ecologic issues hide social problems.

Assuming we had the money? Of course. Advertising isn't responsible for material/consumerism any more than McDonald's is responsible for the love we as a species have for unhealthy food.


This, on the other hand, is legitimately the fault of the rich and the would-be rich.

...

very little food is thrown away before sale, it is mostly used for animal feed,
"good but ugly" vegetables are used for processed foods.
households are responsible for 80% of food waste

Eh it's not like we would totally stop wanting stuff of course but I think people would buy less stuff they get bored of after a day and focus on things they actually will enjoy.

You'd struggle, commies build shit to last. Planned obsolescence and even failure built into a product is not just common in capitalism but one of its major downsides.

Even if we assume that's true, capitalism is still at fault for making the same thing cost less per weight if you buy more of it. That just encourages waste.

Considering that 80% of the population in the so-called First World has more debt than property, I am not overly concerned about "all our material wealth."

...

...

That's a pretty lame criticism tbqhwyf

How so? Multibuy etc deals are a huge cause of food waste

The underlying implication of the question was whether it's worth it for workers in the first world to support communism. obviously

It's only numbers until you miss a couple payments. Then the thugs show up at your door to kick you out and take your shit.

Sorry I mistyped.
You're right, we should get rid of capitalism because multibuy deals are too tempting lmao

...

So you're saying that we should use up all of the worldly resources? What will we do when we hit the point where we cannot experience anymore growth (which capitalism needs, or it crashes)?

And btw, we can sustain enough food for the entire human population, just not the wasteful consumption we're seeing here in the west


I can assure you that we're living way above our means and if we continue this way, we'll see a catastrophe unfold before our eyes. Capitalism needs growth, communism doesn't.

...

was actually looking to a legitimate answer to this

*if it lowers their standards of living

Natural capital burned out is a pretty big concern when you care about standards of living m8.

There is absolutely no reason for porky to abolish capitalism, it is the duty of the worker to do so, same with the 3rd world, no reason why any first worlder must apologize or change, its due to the 3rd worlders to liberate themselves

It's more accurate to say that without the third world labor and markets, capitalism would have long collapsed thanks to a massive fall in the rate in profit. So yes, in capitalism, you do need poor brown people in the third world to do most of the work.

Fpbp

What? That is the most pressing issue we are facing today, and it is interlinked with climate change and ecological destruction. Stop being a retard. The later we stop capitalism the harder the fall we will take.

They absolutely do have that much tangible wealth. The question I think you're trying to raise is whether or not they can actually access that wealth. It's all well and good owning a billion dollars of shares in company X, but if nobody wants to buy them they're basically worthless. The thing is, markets value things based on how much money you can actually get by selling them. They could get all their money out if they sold everything, and there are more than enough resources for them to buy, but it would still probably take a few years or even decades for them to liquidate everything. Usually the most profitable assets are also the least easily liquidated.

Smoking is NOT moe! :

Why? Intuitively it seems like these would be easier to liquidate because people would want to buy them

Both you dumb ape

Its really fucking hard to sell off gigantic companies in a profitable quick manner, just as it is to sell massive amounts of gold or real estate

You have to wait for a buyer to come along. If you're tied into a 10,000 page legal contract to fund a project spread across 5 different jurisdictions which isn't going to pay out for another 20 years, it might be a bit tricky to find someone willing to do all the research necessary to figure out whether it's a good deal in the first place, let alone have the available cash to buy you out.