Porky taking the fruits of your labor: bad

I know right, why should we have to decide democratically on these decisions, and if I'm unhappy with the decision the community would try to find a compromise since we live in a society geared towards maximizing happiness over profits

FUCK THAT GAY ASS SHIT NIGGA!!!!1

Nah fam, lets be exploited by a single despot who controls everything we do in the work place and doesn't give a fuck about our opinion or happiness. Lets toil our lives away working to make one individual super rich then starve after we get replaced by a robotic manufacturing force that we have no control over since it's owned privet

DAS SUM GOOD SHIT RIGHT THERE NIGGA 😤😤 😤😤👌!!!!!!!!!!11

Nice utopianism you got going there fam 💯

The use of emojis is an act against god

...

Let's say there's a vote for municipal broadband. You don't think it's necessary (the internet is fast enough for your purposes), so you vote against it. The rest of the commune voted for it, so it passes. Your "tax" goes up a little bit this year to pay for the installation. Now you find your internet is much faster and you're enjoying the results. Should you not have to pay for it?
Whatever system you have (oligarchy, monarchy, democracy), there will always be decisions made that effect everyone without a consensus. Democracy implements policies with the fewest number of malcontents.
Also, it's not exploitation (in the economic sense) because your labor is being used to provide you something of equivalent value. If the commune has a surplus that will go towards lowering the amount you pay next year for the services it provides.

Everything that can be decided on a local scale is decided on a local scale. Things like waste management, power management, water, police, and so on. On the larger scale you'd have a federation of communes that decide things affecting the nation like defense spending or space research.
The possibility of representatives becoming a new "ruling class" is mitigated by the fact that they can be recalled by the population directly, and that there are so many representatives and their power is spread thinly, so it requires a lot of effort to corrupt representatives.

I am interested in reviving this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment
For the United States. Which would give us about 5,200 representatives .

...

I'd actually enjoy being able to keep the fruits of my labor and not be exploited.

Everyone would like to walk into a diner, sit down to eat, then get up and not pay for the meal.

...

What about the coalition of despots in the commune who won't accommodate your grievances and abuse their majority to exploit you?

...

Funnily enough that is basically how it worked. Same with the two Napoleons.

i'd like not being forced to to sit down and eat then expected to pay.

If you can't see how that's wishful thinking I don't think I can help you.

In reality that's what corporations do too.

You could always just leave society

Anarchists will never get that part right because they've never worked in a cooperative themselves. You think that working in a cooperative doesn't alienate you? Lmao

So why aren't you an AnCap then? Nobody forces you to do this and that in AnCap either.

and?
democracy is just that, flawed
but its better then not having saw at all

also
why would we vote for hitler in this straw man universe your concocting

why is anarchyball so consistently shit at making analogies

because we voted for trump

Consult a history book.

where's your critique

You can always leave for a commune that suits your needs

...

...

butt hurt lib detected

Majority actually voted Hillary, thats what happens when you put restrictions on democracy. Also those that voted trump did'nt just do so because they where all "hurrrrr he gunna make niggers go way hurrrr", people voted for him because of deep distrust of our current ideological climate and economic system.

same goes for>>1567909 and

these arent indictment on democracy, they are indictments on the capitalist system, leaving people uninformed as to the despot to take control next. The key word would be INFORMED CHOICES
something that ironically is layered over in our world of marketing and manufactured consent.

First of all, Hitler was never elected by a majority of Germans. It was thanks to a system of voting similar to our own that he won with a plurality. Second, there has rarely been a tyranny of the majority. Most tyrannies are exercised by a minority. For every "tyranny of the majority" you can find I can find ten other tyrannies. The fact is that decisions made by a majority are the most stable, because on average all the stupid extremes will cancel each other out. History verifies this hypothesis.

You either eat or you don't. Assuming you don't want to starve, you must order at some place. Then you will have to pay, no matter where you go. So with communes, you can choose where you go, but wherever you go, you'll have to pay for what's provided to you.

Also, something that's always looked over is that even if you're not directly benefiting from something, you benefit indirectly through positive externalities. You might be a healthy person who won't use universal health care often. However, it still affects you indirectly:
- thanks to preventative care and regular checkups, your bus driver is less likely to get a sudden heart attack and injure or kill you in a crash.
- thanks to mental health screening, lunatics get the care they need and are less likely to commit mass murders.
- everyone is more efficient because they are in good health. The mailman you get your mail from comes on time. The workers you work with in a cooperative make you all more money because they take less sick days. And so on.

These are clearly not the same.

...

Good luck surviving retard unless you want to be exploited by nature because it forces you to eat to live.

Every representative would still have absolute power in the small area he's responsible for, or am I mistaken?

Also even with imperative mandate you have tendencies of a ruling class forming itself mainly because in order to do their job representatives aquire a higher grade of knowledge about their respective fields than the average voter, thus making the voting base indirectly dependent on the leaders. Thus people come to terms with representatives acting on their own/against the will of the public out of fear to not have anyone qualified do the job. A bunch of other mass psychological moments have a play in this aswell.

Robert Michels in his study of the beginnings of the German social democratic party makes some interesting points: archive.org/details/MICHELS_Robert_Political_parties

...

If you don't like taxation you can always leave the country. By staying within the legally recognized territory of the U.S. and becoming s citizen you agree to their rules. Living there without paying taxes would violate the NAP and be oppressive to the U.S. government.

And food and education would just float around in the air between all the different communes in your anarchist utopia?

This is more hipocrisy than anything cause it is exactly what every business owner ends up doing.

When the name of the game is "only profit matters" you're not gonna give a shit about anything until It starts harming your profit. And that can be bad for both your customers and employees.

...

Except the difference is under communism you would have maximum say over the affairs of the community through democratic means. You can't avoid living with other people and having to make collective decisions which may not go your way, but you can implement a system that ensures the greatest personal agency for the greatest number.

Capitalism provides the proles with no say over the distribution of resources, no say in the functioning of the economy, and for all intents and purposes, no say in the politics of the community.

so
that's called nature
this world of complete self reliance you imagine does not exist.

But your fee to starve if you desperately want to be antisocial so badly

You are correct. This is a tendency under any system. But we want to find the system that minimizes it.
Also, that's an interesting link.

Have you ever taken a high school social studies class? Because it sounds like you haven't.

...

Of all these, the first one is the least likely.

are you trying to be retarded
because its hard to respond to posts like these where I'm unsure if your just being disingenuous, or just clueless

grats on the autistic pic duder

ok

Why should you have a say in the distribution of other peoples labor fruits?

not survival of the fittest
just a basic reality

collective action trumps individual force almost all the time. Do you think society was made by just one man or a small kabal of men? Social cooperation is just in our nature, if you don't like it then you could just leave the world.

why should a boss?

That's what I thought. How do you guys and ancaps differ again?

...

If you seriously think that this is a problem then there's no way you could support capitalism. It's entire basis is the appropriation of wealth created by one class by a class that creates nothing.

Besides, I don't buy into Lockean premise of "if you create it it's yours". I want to implement a system that provides the greatest freedom for the greatest number. That system has to be as democratic as possible, thus allowing the maximum exercise of agency for the population. It also has to see to eberybody's basic needs, thus preventing them from being plunged into grinding poverty that would effectively imprison them.

kek
Sorry I forgot you had the ability to maintain a society all on your own. Silly me

he doesn't, you can spend your money how you want

why not just have the majority vote to poison there own water supply and live off drinking their own piss?

So the company owners don't extract value from your work? Where do you think their salaries come from?

once again I refer to

they are the wealth and job creators. there would be no work to do without them.

Are you implying that this couldn't happen under capitalism? Because it could. If democracy in general is your target then I would rather live in the tyranny of the majority than the tyranny of the minority. Collective decisions mean that not everybody gets their way, tough shit. Either you can do it in a way where as many people as possible get a say and some level of agency, or do it in a way where the vast majority have none.

Besides, I only support democracy insofar as it advances the cause of personal freedom. If a majority votes to restrict the freedoms of a minority in a way that doesn't enhance the personal freedoms of that majority (beyond giving them the freedom to oppress the minority), then that vote is illegitimate.

but that's wrong

...

...

Actually they objectively do not create wealth, only labour can create wealth. They at best facilitate the flow of initial startup capital (capital that they didn't create), which could be easily done with a central banking system. Their net contribution, either in the form of capital or labour, is negative. They are parasites by definition.

...

if someone paid you to wash his windows, has he taken anything from you that you could have obtained yourself?

no, he has given you a job and wealth.

Refer to>>1568003

Ok
OK

I see where this is going, and I politely excuse myself from the ride

Ok…that's enough of this…There's a limit to the stupidity I can tolerate.

Bosses don't "Create" jobs…jobs exist as long as their is work to be done. Farming jobs exist because people need to eat not because of some capitalist. All bosses do is restrict access to the means of production PREVENTING people from being able to do work without their permission.

That isn't relationship between an employer and a worker numbnuts, that's worker and customer. The guy who owns the window washing company is the boss, not the guy who wants his windows washed.

The boss pays the worker to wash the windows, but the money he pays him with is money that worker produced by providing that service. The money the worker is paid is money he created in the first place. So the boss doesn't pay the worker, the worker pays the boss.

can you name any large cooperatives that can compete with capitalist corporations?

so you would just clean my house and the the fruit of that labor is good enough to live on? i dont need to pay you?

but the boss provided the equipment, training and contacts for that work to take place

the worker is free to leave and start his own competing company if he thinks he can do it better than the boss

that's completely down to the system we exist in kiddo. Market forces will always favor the tyrannical over the just

Christ stop making me refer to

Do you know what wealth creation is? If I chop down a tree and cut it into planks, I have taken the natural capital of the world and multiplied it's usefulness. I have created wealth. If I turn those planks into a house, I have created wealth. If I drew the plans for the house I create wealth. If I help manage the operation I help to create wealth. If I sit at home and collect dividends from a company I own while not actually doing anything, I am not creating any wealth.

You are the only ones who give a shit about this.

wtf are you talking about? If you're not going to pay me no I wouldn't work for you because I'm not getting anything out of it. How is this relevant in any way?

And how did he provide those things? Did he do it out of the goodness of his heart? No, it's an investment, meaning that he wants that contribution back. How does he get it back? He gets it from profits produced by the workers. Ergo the workers pay for all that shit with their labour. It's more like a loan. If you loan me money and I buy something, then I pay you back, who paid for it? Me, not you.

???

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
THHHHIIISSSSS>>1567965

ok good, we agree there was no intrinsic wealth or labor fruits for you to gain from that work. so how am i exploiting you if i pay you to do it?

...

but i thought workers would just do everything better because muh hivemind?

Are you mentally deficient? Do you think that singular corporate owners have some inherent worth and skills that groups of humans just could not feasibly accomplish? In western society it's generally agreed that even though dictatorships are technically more efficient than democratic systems of governance, it's still valued to have some semblance of democracy and wider input. Why then is it that when it comes to enterprise, this value gets thrown out the window?

youtube.com/watch?v=qHnybqKMZ3M

WE DON'T EVEN SAY THIS
CANT YOU STRAW MAN PROPERLY?

Paying someone to do work, if you pay them the full value of their labor, is not exploitation. Exploitation is having a monopoly over the means of production, forcing poor people to work for you and then extracting surplus value from their labor.

leftypol is 2 ez 2 b8

wtf is communism capitalism now?

Frogposters are one of the biggest red flags and these retards keep falling for it.

What does "creating the company" amount to if you don't manage it (executives, who are technically proles, do this), do any of the work, or even really pay for anything? Creating the drawing for a house is actually creating something, a blueprint, a piece of information that is used to build something. What is a company aside from a gathering of people? It's those people that create the wealth.

...

There is a difference between valuing net output and valuing the individual average value extractions from the people within a corporation. And the absolute efficiency of more tyrannical corporations in the modern day is moot considering the prevalence of forced scarcity to cave in to market pressure. When it comes to food production, for example, it's pretty common that produce will be destroyed simply so it can artificially be made profitable.

stop trying to excuse your retardation

The capitalist doesn't give back you idiot. He only takes, what he "gives back" is wealth given to you in the first place. In the case of a commune the wealth that accrues to society is put in the hands of the population at large, not to an unaccountable boss, and it goes to buying new roads, paying for new goods that improve the lives of the population as a whole, not buying porky a third mansion.

???

But I'm not the one responding seriously to trolls.

so sorry for being able to recognise deliberately obvious 1/10 bait.

ok fine

Not my point.

But while you're at it, we are certainly better than most of our employers at our craft, or else he wouldn't need any of us.

Yet despite this we're just an asset for him to wake up at 11:00 and pretend he's not where he is cause he hired a council of managers he also undervalues.

capitalist is more free

That would be management, which capitalists generally don't do, only 27% of shareholders even bother to vote. You want to know the extent of a capitalist's effort is? He calls up his stockbroker and tells him to by shares in a company, then he puts down the phone and goes golfing.
Even in cases where capitalists actually do manage their companies, the level of control they have over production as well as the amount f wealth they accumulate is NOT proportional to their contributions in labour.

ok this is obvious B8

you two are right

...

...

Except under most socialist models you would get a portion of wealth back as personal property, and it would be w much larger portion than you get under capitalism. If you are a worker under capitalism the majority of your contribution goes to make a parasite rich, the amount you get back is minuscule and a fraction of what you actually created.

...

m8 I appreciate your fighting, but I feel you and I have been hooked on the b8 post

What a laugh.

...

That contribution is only put into the company in the case of starting a new company from scratch. In this case the capitalist facilitates the production of wealth, but their contribution is ultimately much smaller than their reward, since once the company is running they still collect profits without actually contributing anything.

However the vast majority of stock ownership isn't directed at startups, it's concentrated in established corporations, meaning that the vast majority of capitalists are simply parasitizing the population.

It's usury plain and simple, something that was illegal throughout most of history because it was seen as parasitic.

Doubtful.

How are they a parasite if they facilitate the production of wealth?

But you didn't create anything, the company did. And you are compensated for your work helping the company create wealth.

If you could just create this wealth on your own why wouldn't you? Why did you get a job at the company? Make your own company.

Of course they are contributing, and they are compensated for that with pay.

You can invest in a company after it's started you know. That can allow them to procure more resources/workers/etc.

I don't think you know what a parasite is.

...

Well, it's been fun. I'm off to bed.

"Let me tell you what policies you advocate!"

Because the vast majority of the time they don't. They facilitate the starting of the corporation by providing initial capital. They could be replaced by a bank, the whole point is that they are fundamentally unnecessary and a net drain on society, they take more than they contribute. You can have a society without capitalists, you CAN'T have one without workers.

Oh okay so the workers who made the products didn't create anything.

Compensated with a fraction of what the worker creates, while the rest goes to somebody who had little or nothing to do with production who can BARELY be said to have shuffled paper around, and who could be replaced by a bank.

Because access to the means of production is restricted by the capitalists. A bunch of people want to start making products? Well the tools they need to do so are being kept from them and are concentrated in the hands of the porkies. That doesn't change the fact that those tools and that capital has its genesis in labour, meaning that only labour created wealth.

Yes by the investment principle still stands, that the workers ultimately pay for these things, meaning that the net contribution of the capitalist is negative.

Somebody who takes without contributing is a parasite, and we have already examined how their net contribution is less than nothing.

Do you?

Nice, you just BTFO libertarian/an-cap ideology in two sentences. Seriously though how would libertarians respond to this? Is government property ownership somehow magically different then private property ownership.

Whats wrong with utopianism? Why aim for anything less than?

I also like to point out how the Holodomor would have been totally acceptable to AnCaps if the USSR had been Stalin's private property. Or how by their logic a person living at the bottom of a 50 foot deep hole from which they can't escape is more free than a person living in a thriving society.

And a commune's expenditure on healthcare and education is not an investment? You're going to train surgeons and engineers for free, then allow them to run off to ancap land to earn for themselves, with no consequences?

wdhmbt?

...

You're talking to a lolbertarian, dog whistling with usury isn't going to work. He isn't a muslim/natsoc

They could run off to AnCap land if they want, why they would want to live in Somalia is beyond me.

Yes, and we want to abolish the economic necessity for this kind of round-about investment. Why put all your faith in the good will of a person whoes only doing it to generate a profit?

k

You don't have to put faith in anyone's good will, only in their desire to generate a profit.

That's why capitalism works and large-scale socialism is a fairytale.

Are you implying that every profit a capitalist makes is in the interest of society?

You can buy all the tools you want. Manufacturers don't really care how much of a smelly hippie you are, as long as you have the money.

Between a thousand workers there's more than enough assets - homes and cars - to loan a couple million. But they're not willing to risk them, because they know workers and tools alone aren't a guarantee for a profitable or sustainable business.

No and it doesn't have to be. Working "in the interest of society" is an unenforceable, paralyzing obligation. There's uncountable groups and sub-groups with conflicting interests - no one can please them all.

It's much more practical for everyone to have a right to protect their self-interest, and meet halfway with others who have the same right, whenever they wish and see mutual benefit.

My point isn't to make everyone "work for society", but to either prevent people from making a profit from harming others or to change the system of incentives.

Whatever will work to transition frim production for exchange to production for use.

You are part of the commune.
You are not a member of porky's family.
Therefore:
Not in your best self interest.

Obviously in your best interests because it directly benefits you.

Simple, isn't it?

I don't think that's really true. The "rate of profit" defined at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_profit is basically telling you how much capitalists have left over when you take the money they get from sales and subtract the amount they had to invest to make the product (employee salaries along with production machines), as a percentage of that investment in production. You can see in the graphs from the attached pdfs that, as Marx predicted, there's been a long-term trend for the rate of profit to fall, and that today the average is something like 10-20%. In other words, for every $100 the capitalists are spending on equipment and employee salaries, they are only getting $110-$120 in sales, for a profit of only $10-$20…if that money was distributed to the workers it probably wouldn't increase their earnings by a huge amount (though I don't know what fraction of the $100 the capitalists are spending goes to salaries and what fraction goes to equipment, would have to look into research into Marx's concept of the "organic composition of capital" to find out)

Oh how nice of them, they only charge me 100% of my labor. Not even porky is that greedy.
Objectively false, else the commune would not be able to provide anything. Even if so, why should I care? I'm still losing 100% of the value I create.
Don't like your boss stealing your labor? Just leave!

In most industries, the profit margins are somewhere around 5-8%.

I pay more in social security taxes alone than goes to the rich.

you are literally retarded

Go ahead and disprove me, if I'm so retarded.

Profit IS surplus value, and in almost every industry, profit margins are tiny.

zuckerberg or murdoch aren't exactly hurting for money
5-8% of a shit ton is a lot
5-8% paid by the 99% to 1% is a lot
your social security gives you a pension at the end of the day
research by piketty and saez proves you wrong, it's just an empirical fact that you're a dumbfuck.
gtfo and stay gone

Membership in a group is a spook

They can provide for you without making a profit dumbass, it is not run as a business. They will only spend on whatever is needed

That argument only works if there is no bosses that won't steal your labour. If you love to dictate 100% of your labor, you are welcome to live outside of communes

Okay, what do I care? The government is still taking more from me than they are
I don't care, it's still less than what the government is taking from me
I don't care, it's still less than what the government is taking from me
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

...

An individual with property rights is better protected from potential harm, and has more options for recourse after such harm has occurred, than the unwilling beneficent of a socialist institution. A non-profit with a direct line of credit to everyone's pocket is a lot more powerful than a for-profit that requires ongoing individual consent.

And production for use is short-sighted. Many socialist countries have combated production for exchange by laying down extensive, objective criteria for how many and what goods will be produced and how they will be distributed. The end result has always been a black market with the worst kind of speculation, profiteering and all sorts of accompanying criminality, that ordinary people become accomplice to for basic consumer goods.

But they literally do. The only compensation you get is at the behest of the Commune, which you get regardless of whether or not you work.

Then how would they provide for those who can't/don't feel like working?
That argument only works if there are no communes that won't steal 100% of your labour.
Until the gutterpunk ancoms start screeching and waving rifles because only liabilities are left in communes and the people that actually want to work and improve their community won't just give them free shit just because

loving every laugh

If you're a woman. Otherwise the odds are worse than Vegas.

Membership in a group can be as fluid and temporal as in a Union of Egoists. It is spooky unless you make it so. That user didn't insist nor implore you to remain part of the commune as everyone ITT is literally telling you are welcome to leave if you don't want anyone dictating how to spend your labour at all.

True, but if you had to distribute that 5-8% evenly among all the workers at the company it wouldn't increase the amount of money they make by much. So it's not true that "If you are a worker under capitalism the majority of your contribution goes to make a parasite rich"

lel. Prove that 100% of labour is charged, and prove that " gutterpunk ancoms start screeching and waving rifles because only liabilities are left in communes and the people that actually want to work and improve their community won't just give them free shit just because"

Fair enough, let me put it this way then
You might as well have a gun pointed to my head when you say that

This is all I was trying to say. Do not operate under the impression that, were it not for your surplus labor being stolen, your life would be significantly better. Even if you achieve your goals, you will be disappointed with the result

This thread unironically turned me back towards capitalism.

People need to be able to follow their own self interests, forced collectivization is fucking spooky.

youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ?t=124

These bread factory workers actually make $65,000 a year instead of dogshit. They don't have a CEO or a board taking most of their salary.

wew lad. I don't think you actually knows how a commune works don't you?

...

This is great and I support it fully. But the question remains, why is it so uncommon?

I also think it shows how great the current system is, people have the freedom to cooperate and collectivize without everyone else being forced into it.

Fucking nature oppressing me with patriarchial entropy! reeeeeeeeeee

that's forced collectivization

Using money is muh ethical capitalism though, how is

this guy supposed to spend all day in a drum circle if he actually has to contribute to the collective to benefit from the collective?

It is so uncommon because this system relies on greed. A despot run company can generate more profit than a coop. In a socialist system a large workforce is a strength not something you have to compete against. The 8 hour day is essential to capitalists because there is a point to when your labor is pure profit for them and hence why you have to work as long as you do.

he can spend days in the drum circle because the working week will be thoroughly minimized, duh.

Wew lad. If ancom really comes, people wouldn't need to work unless they want to

and profit can be reinvested into the company to innovate further, like all tech companies do, profit is required to future proof your business.

I do agree that the 8 hour day is fucked but I can't imagine it's strictly due to capitalism, sure productivity has increased through automation but we've created new jobs to counter that. if we just start slacking off and reducing hours we might fall behind in progress and stagnate instead of continuing to progress.

No necessarily.
We could just automatize and implement a UBI to make up for the lower wages that'd come with fewer work-hours.
Then automization would not be a threat to wages and consumption, and there's no reason productivity should fail.

reeeeee still muh forced labor ethical capitalism fuck you pay me fascist!!!

but no seriously that's entirely theoretical

did you even read the post I was replying to?

And again, if
then I'll go ahead and leave that commune.

Good luck collecting taxes on that

also moneyless ancoms will screech about this being ethical capitalism

Indeed, lessening work-hours would leave people free to innovate more, rather than spend their time on menial work.

if we don't go full gung ho statecap we're gonna have to shorten the work week. one of the reasons people even work 5 (or more) days a week under capitalism is the high unemployment rate.

...

I use this flag because there's no communalist flag. I am not opposed to politics and organized society, I am against state-craft.

And also sure, it's not perfect at all.
But it just shows that capitalism keeps us arbitrarily wasting our lives at work, because it'd collapse if we didn't.
It can't fully automatize and reduce our work-days to trivialities, because it needs to have consumers, and thus paid lavour.

wew lad
that's some spooky shit m8

your working to make someone else rich, in a state of nature your labor goes directly to benefit you (ie. you pick fruit=you eat). Capitalism is the organisation of labor from the interest of the self to the interest of a society (social labor). This inevitably got more done then every human living for themselves in the woods, hunting pigs, then dying (and surprisingly it was handled quite communally before the advent of capitalism).
Labor is necessary to survival, we don't deny this, but labor for a capitalist is exploitative.
If we must work as a society to achieve our goals (which we must) then I would prefer my labor to by decided upon democratically by myself and all those who need, benefit, and aid it then it all be used for the betterment of one.

stop false flagging

ugh

...

They have a CEO and he's clearly a smart, capable guy.

You can't grab a random bunch of bakers and expect something like this.

Also, this is ancoms we're talking about, so you forgot

automization is a ways off, and everytime something is automated new jobs open to fill. technology evolves and so do the jobs needed to work with that technology.

when we eventually reach near full automation, which will probably happen one day (if we aren't all dead from war), then UBI will probably make sense or we wont need UBI by that point, and we'll be post scarcity and just have every need and desire fulfilled.

going by the general population, probably not

Capitalism is nothing if not short-sighted. The automation industry is absolutely booming right now precisely because full automation generates profit

I'm not saying it's right around the corner, but the march of progress isn't going to be halted by some anticommunist ideological conspiracy

This is my problem with communism, you need some guy with the idea and will to see his plan through to build the bread factory and how it works and whatnot. Inb4 bookchin memery. Yes yes but with all the leaders/managers/smart people being typically bourgeois how do you expect them to recognize the plight of the worker?

Those couple of guys in that video who founded/work as CEO of those companies are great men, but I've seen enough porky memes here to know that Holla Forums knows the majority of them are not.

The CEO isn't the CEO in a typical sense though. His pay is not exponentially larger than the average worker in the factory. He is more of a manager than anything.

Automation can generate relative profit over other companies in the same industry who are having to pay more for human workers to do the same job. But as any given advance in automation spreads throughout the industry, it decreases the overall rate of profit in that industry. This was Marx's basic idea about why capitalism undermines itself in the long term, capitalists are always doing things that give them temporary relative advantages over other capitalists, but undermine the capitalist class as a whole in the long term.

that's leninists for you lol

...

Well for one Communism isn't literally an oxymoron like ancap is.

so become a ceo

inb4 collective interest and self interest are the same thing spook

You probably think the wealth will trickle down someday too huh?

Weak strawman m8. It's not a spook. It's why communities exist in the first place.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity

what's he's saying is you are not part of the capitalist class, you do not own means of production and therefore it is in your self interests to collectivize

if you were a rich CEO/business/owner etc, it would be in your self interests to support capitalism.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity
Literally a spook.

but you can. you just won't get money for it.

...

...

Nah.

no that's you

In Communism there is no money. You just produce whatever is needed or whatever you personally want. Yo'ure not going to be deprived of basic necessities.

how do i produce an iphone?

we'll give everyone a how to guide when we hang apple ceos

youtube.com/watch?v=leFuF-zoVzA
youtube.com/watch?v=73eW7chL1H4

i don't know but it would be done with a lot fewer chinese jumping from their factories' roofs

...

...

...

This is part of the reason why I've been become more sympathetic to anarcho-communism and communization theory, which skip the intermediate step when resources are supposed to be rationed.
As long as someone else, and this includes the majority, decides how much your labour is worth, you're not going to be free.
I believe with today's development of the productive forces and the amount of shit that get produced going straight to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" wouldn't be utopian.

nvm communism is shit we need capital

Will you also explain why, or is this just a statement?

How is forced individual labor different?

Those weren't Socialist countries cause the workers didn't collectively own the means of production. What you're referring to is called central planning and it's not a requirement for Socialism.

I'm not sure I understand.

Do you believe we have to ability to produce to fill each according to their need, without developing the mop further?

Ya'll motherfuckers need the bread book.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is a carefully considered phrase. You do, under communism, receive the full fruits of your labor in effect. If slackers are a problem, then people will do what pirates did on their own ships (internally anarcho-communist): institute a system of social insurances and bonuses.

now with pic and pdf!

...

Is it possible at all for arts or luxury to exist under communism?

communism/socialism seems focused on "needs", eg food/shelter/clothes/etc.

what about music, video games, entertainment, dildos, etc, etc.

thing's that aren't necessities yet we've grown to almost need in modern society.

refer to

arts of cores
luxury will develop as we go along

if making music of equal labor value to working the fields or laboring?

Read Marx.

I don't think so. In fact, I know it isn't so. Even though money would have you believe otherwise, not everything is fungible. Communize everything and the Chinese will have a lot of smartphones being churned out, the Germans a lot of cars, etc. So that means international trade is still there, and continuing specialization (which is probably a good idea because of effects of scale), which will take a technical, planned coordination to make sure everyone is providing the right input to get the "all needs met" output.

But fine, let's assume we all become one world, and we plan exchange/trade to value everyones labour fairly also. Maybe then, with today's MOP we can give everyone a smartphone. But we won't be able to produce adequate health-care, education, toilets, running water, and other basic infrastructure, etc, for people in underdeveloped countries, because doing that would take years of planned development in situ. If tomorrow everything is made common, the good people in Burkina Faso will still find themselves materially deprived because there just isn't much worth communizing there. It has to be developed. And that again takes coordination and planning.

And also rationing. The resources to develop the rest of the world have to come from somewhere, and it seems unethical to have those people languish for a longer time just to keep the luckier duckies perfectly comfortable.

Open borders doesn't negate this because even if you move 4 billion people into the West overnight, all it means is that you still have to develop additional infrastructure and services for 4 billion people, only now in the West.

Read the Soul of Man Under Socialism by Oscar Wilde my nigga. Not too long, I finished it in one sitting

I'll have a read when I wake up tomorrow. Thanks.

depends
I believe music is primarily a passion project

That's because you don't work for them.

Well in their mind, private property is "natural" and emergess from free exchange, i.e. it is the outcome of freedom and liberty. State property is however the result of violence/aggression and hence reduction of freedom and liberty.

Their problem is that, despite being avid critics of "the state", they have no specific definition of what a state is. Like points out, can't we consider a country ruled over by a single dicator to be that man's "property"? At what point does an organisation become 'a state', i.e. what are the defining or essential properties of a state?

I mean, you can have a private police, your own laws, your own currency, private military, etc. and control a large geographical area and the people within and yet not have a 'state' and still be cool in the eyes of ancaps. It's almost as if the mere addition of the word "private" before something makes it OK. Army bad - private army good; police bad - private police good; taxes bad - fee for living on privatley owned land payed as a percentage of your income, good.

Under capitalism: Exchange value is market determined; even if composition requires the same amount of invidiual labour hours as other laboring, it is not that but ABSTRACT, socially necessary labour-POWER that is the source of value.

(as for use-value, it is not quantifiable and thus the use-value of the two cannot be compared and would differ for different individuals)

Under socialism: only use-value matters, which again is not quantifiable.

nasty

You are correct. We left the scarcity behind decades ago. It is only our method of organising the economy that has lagged behind and made us blind to this fact.

Note: I'm not the same poster. But yes, the MoP is more than developed enough to switch over to production for need.

When we build a society based on the maxim "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" we lay the basis for the full flourishing of human potential. How many artists starve under capitalism? How many are forced to stifle their creative potential to whore themselves out to porky?

A communised society does not imply the absence of specialisation, planning, and co-ordination, and a planned economy does not require exchange to function. Exchange value is an abstraction that destroys valuable information about the productive process, so it could be argued that the determination of exchange value is an unnecessary hindrance on a planned economy.

See the cybernetics thread for more:

Don't confuse true democracy with the bastardised concept of 'representative' democracy. Representative democracy is nothing more than aristocracy, rule by the elite. The realm of freedom is necessarily democratic.

...

Anarchism, friend.

Go home Andrew Ryan.
Rupture is flooding.

If it isn't "tyranny" of the majority, it's tyranny of a minority.