This kills the collectivist commie

If the resources exist to provide people with fancy new sports cars then why wouldn't we give them one?

...

Do I NEED one?
What will it offer me?
Why would I want one?
Is there a propaganda machine that tells me I need stuff I don't?

Not really a car person tbh rather have a mid-90s ford ranger

Why don't you wish for perfection that never needs to change?

USE

...

Economics isn't about supply and demand though. It's about doing things that work for people.

...

Right, like ensuring you have enough of a supply of things to meet people's demand for those things.

But there is enough supply of housing and food to provide for everyone now and yet we have homeless people everywhere as well as hungry people. We have enough labor to have a 4 hour workday and yet we have overworked people and unemployed people at the same time. Capitalism, it seems, isn't very good at this.

look up Yugoslavia

I'm not suggesting it is, I'm just making fun of you for saying that economics isn't about supply and demand when that is like half of the entire field, and would be the entirety of the field under communism.

Look up my dick, market cuck

So you agree, we have to remove profit from the production mode?!?!

you're making fun of SatanNazi. Marx's Labour theory of value takes into account supply and demand (as does Adam's Smith's)

Supply and demand aren't the be all and end all of economics, though, and that other poster wasn't me. Economics is the study of the whole system. How people get things and how best to do so is a better answer. Someone may want something more, and be willing to put more up front for it, but that doesn't mean that person should get it. What is the social necessity is what is more important, and this goes beyond individual supply and demand.

...

got a source for that Webm?

Supply and demand doesn't disprove LTV. Price is determined by supply and demand, but it's value isn't.

Read Marx.

The source for it is here:
youtube.com/watch?v=5bqPXqYWHlE

I also created my own version here:
youtube.com/watch?v=NJwOoy9It2c

Ok, wow. I thought this post was satire, but I guess liberals/pol/ancraps and so on really are literally retarded.

Firstly, The value of goods under capitalism is determined by more than the simple contrast of supply and demand.

Communism no longer relies on a system where by owners of private property and top down management have exclusive decision making power and reap the surplus value created by the laborers, who inevitably receive less compensation than value they added to the product. As such, the value of goods would be determined in a similar fashion but without the need to sap money from the workers. There would now be no need for artificial scarcity, production of useless goods (think dollar store tat, crummy unnutritious food, etc.), or planned obsolescence, as the economy has moved to a method of production for use/intrinsic value, rather than the exchange value. Currency would still exist for a time, but would soon move to a non money form, better suited for tracking resources and compensating labor, than for investment in private property for the further accumulation of capital.

Trying to reason with a stone

Yeah, because there is no currency. It's like asking how an equation will be completed without first providing a framework to operate from. How do you ever intend to solve a problem if there is no equals sign (in principle). You can't have value for how fifty apples because there is no currency or means of exchange. The concept of exchange (ranging from the basic barter system to our more complex, tried and true establishment of currency) is even observed to occur in nature (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_among_animals), so the assertion that it is unique only to humans (some bigoted creation from rich people to keep us down) is not true.

You do reap the surplus value to handing it to those who don't produce surplus value themselves, as under communism, those who do not work will eat.

But you can't buy things when the concept of currency is abolished. So you distribute it. But what central planning can conduct the surveys and ensure that the "goods" (let's say apples) are properly distributed? If the introduction of centralized authority to deal with these things is prohibited just the same as currency is prohibited, then how do you go forward? Who decides who gets what? If we all just decide for ourselves, then what is stopping me from taking from you, who has more apples than me, because from my POV, I am more entitled to the apples than you are (also that you are oppressing the rest of us have-nots)? It just doesn't make sense, you have to have some form of trade involving exchange.

There likely would be some sort of UBI that redistributes a modicum of resources to those who have no means to work, but it would extend to all people for mutual assurance of life satisfaction. Those who are incapable of working would undoubtedly benefit from this, as we all desire security when made incapable of caring for ourselves. Those who refuse to work would in all likelihood be doing so out of some kind of mental deficiency, and they would be taken care of by those who would attempt to resolve their unfortunate problems.

None the less, you're poking at an inconsistency in my spur of the moment post that is not related to the issue raised in the OP.

If central planning and distribution interests you and if you're not just here for cheap gotchas, there is a big discussion about that.

Supply and demand doesn't determine either price or value.

example: DLC, music, movies, anything digital

But the concept of any central planning is diametrically opposed to any sort of currency-free society. There can be no centralized banks operating under a state, and there sure as shit can't be any private porky banks. It just doesn't make sense.
What cheap gotchas, there are holes in your logic that I'm pointing out.

Ah yes, the mythical supply and demand. Have you ever considered what this really means? It means that there's both a supply and a demand outside of the equilibrium, so you have houses without people and people without houses at the same time. You have epidemics of starvation and obesity. That's not even discussing how supply and demand are never that flexible, people are willing to go into 6-digit debt to pay for their medical bills.

All your fancy economic models that try to justify capitalism are fairly self-defeating.

Because you can't afford to pay for the house. People can't read the markets very well (unless you get lucky or orchestrate something; you could also be gifted/educated), so that will inevitably result in surplus. Like houses with no customers. There isn't always going to be a consistent amount of apples and customers who buy apples. Sometimes they ship more than they need and the rest go to waste. The limiting factor is the consumer, not the producer.

...

Reminder that price is merely a commodity's relation to the market.

Currency itself is not a commodity (in the sense of a car or an apple), even when it is sold and has use, it requires another form of currency. Without some form of exchange, there can be no trade because people aren't going to willingly forfeit their goods or services. You can't expect the dentist to just work because people need it. They will simply flee to a consumer who is willing to consume and pay for the service, and who is willing to pay higher for better services and lower for poor services (by abstaining to engage in exchange, driving the price down).

That's an excerpt from a much longer essay called "The Soul of Man Under Socialism"

It's really not that long.

idgi

the world your brain lives in must be incredibly dark

Ever heard of a free clinic?

so what is the price of the thing on the left?

...

It's nothing substantive, though. It's just whining about consumerism. That's great, but your personal distaste does not equate to the absolute negation of all private property. So because of some spiritual nonsense, people must forfeit their goods and services? On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion?
The Marx quote is, as I claimed, fortune cookie bullshit. "The less you are, the more you have". What does this mean, how is this a substantive point against private property? It doesn't make sense, it's just an empty phrase meant to sound deep.
The Slavoj quote assumes I am a capitalist. Do you think I am a capitalist? Do capitalists neglect health and happiness? In what sense, I am of the belief that having the choice to engage in certain purchases (and actually being able to make purchases with currency that exists) is a happier society.

I'm not telling you to have central planning to distribute any goods. You can't have central planning because states are not Communist, as far as definitions go.
There can be no institutions of the sort (dealing with currency exchange/creation). Who decides? Probably porky? Or me? Or you? Why? It's the same process that inevitably leads to some central authority dictating the currency policy, and we're back at square one.

My friend is not all citizenry who wishes to purchase goods from my store.

So the doctors are slaves? They work without being paid? That is the definition of free.

I'm pretty sure that's not what anarchists and even Marxists understand by "no state", but i'm not well versed enough in thoses theories to exapand on it.

Yes, you can't expect a dentist to work for free, or a fireman, or anybody. They will ask for something in return. The video you linked discusses the necessity of some form of payment, but goes on to assert that the people who are most skilled actually fail (only in regards to "cognitive tasks"). So the same basic concept applies to all other things, but if I ask Rajesh to list the factors of 200, he will grow worse over time. Initially, Rajesh qualified for the highest tier payment because he worked better than his peers, but over time he failed to meet the qualifications. This would mean that Rajesh is rooted out of the higher tiers. This must apply (that Rajesh initially scored well), otherwise they would have no metric to analyze his performance after the failure.
"More calculated tasks must require equal reward because we are all actually equal in our ability" is what the video's assertion is. Correct me if I'm wrong, you have it saved and must be more familiar with it (I've only seen it once). What is the definition of a calculated and complex task. Can we observe this in the working class? Is it literally listing factors of 200? The computer scientist will qualify for the highest tier of work when asked to complete a task related to CS because he is better than the other applicants, presuming the case that they are all average and not experienced. How did they quantify that Rajesh was willing to meet the requirements for the highest tier? The video deals with performance over time, from what I gathered. Initially, there was a distribution, but it seems that over time, it converges and actually makes the highest earners suck. Plenty of time has passed since the creation of, say, computer science fields. If the convergence has occurred, then that would mean the law firm might as well hire me because I outperform the lawyer for lower pay. Why would I pay some guy more if he doesn't work as efficiently or as good as me (when I work better and cost less!). We see this with third world labour, an immediate shift when the opportunity arises. But this is not the case. In fact, it is the opposite: people flocking to schooling to educate themselves in these calculated job fields to set themselves apart. They set themselves apart because they are better. The physics professor is hired and stays hired because he is good at what he does, not because he is being artificially boosted. Otherwise, we would have a generation of morons who are uneducated when it comes to kinematics. But the competence of the graduate students directly refute this and serve as proof of the validity of the professor.

Someone call the cops on habitat for humanity, they've got people working without being paid and that's slavery!

A centralized institution dealing with the financial policy of a people cannot exist in a Communist state because currency cannot exist.

Define slavery.

No it isn't. "Property" here doesn't refer to consumer goods. It wasn't until much later that shit like consumer goods were regarded as "property". What's meant by "property" here is value-producing possessions. Factories, land, real estate, etc. Not your toothbrush.

To gain capital, you must work and save. If you work and save, you aren't living and enjoying your life. You end up running into the problem that the more you hoard wealth, the less that wealth can be used to make your life better, defeating the purpose of gaining all that wealth in the first place.

You're certainly defending the system that sustains the capitalist class.

Some do.

Wow, we're hitting peak commodity fetishism here. Capitalism is a mode of production, not consumerism.

No. Watch the whole thing you fucking dipshit.

His point is that people are more motivated by things other than money.

In addition, meritocracy is a stupid meme. There is not, nor has there ever been, a meritocracy. A part of that video is pointing out that attempting to set up these sorts of pay-grade meritocracies have completely failed.

My tooth-brush is my private property. When goods are consumed, they become the property of the consumer because they were sold.
Yes.
Subjective. Also, emotional points of how much you like things isn't a substantive point against private property. I can just as easily claim that "factories, land, real estate, etc." seizure makes me "unhappy", but that means nothing.
Well, for starters, you could pass it down to your children, you could donate it to a charity, you could put it in a term deposit, etc. Or you could spend it frivolously.
Defending a murderer doesn't make you one. Some do it by profession. Others play devil's advocate.
In a capitalist system, the consumer is bound by what the consumer wishes to purchase from a private company. Really, it's just the divide between public and private. Within that definition, it does not draw a distinction between consumer v. producer, but it does dictate the ideals both entities are to display.

The people who underperform do so because they are not as good. If that were true, then they would not be in the position they are in.
What motivators do you suggest? The currency allows purchasing anything you want.
Ironic that you berate my point relating meritocracy by criticizing meritocracy. That's exactly what I am claiming when I talk about firing physics professors because they lack merit to fill their seat. IF that were true, the graduate students would be dunces and the dentistry grads would take your tooth out (and not when it is needed), but we see a stable system because they ARE fitted for their positions.

I don't need to define slavery because the post I responded to just did, it's working without getting paid

Marx wrote a 2260 page manuscript analysing Capital and how it works beyond the supply and demand meme.

But I guess you really btfo us with that one image macro.

So it's slavery. Taking a page out of the fortune cookie shit that passes for actual points:

Quality over quantity

What quality?

The only rebuttal Austrian economics have against Marx is the subjectivist theory and macroeconomic predictions.

Marx did a structural analysis of Capital and therefore his work is infinitely more valuable and objective from a theory that looks at merely human intentions and is therefore psychologistic.

All property is theft because private honorship of natural resources is illegitimate, the person you bought it from had no actual right to sell it to you

yes, but that doesn't mean an institution dealing with the distribution of goods cannot exist.
Money will be abolished, not products.

*Private ownership, I need to get to sleep…

Congratulation, your post lacked both.

Holy shit you're dumb, I was trying to demonstrate that under your definition of slavery volunteer work is slavery but I guess you need that actively spelled out, huh

This is what classcucks who have never run a business actually believe.

Defense attorneys who are responsible for getting off criminals who then go to re-offend the overwhelming majority of them are themselves directly responsible for the resulting crime. Bad example, fam.

The sole determinant for the validity of the work, as you mentioned, was that it was 2260 pages long. But that one image cannot, itself, be correct or accurate because the work it is criticizing is longer. Valuing quality over quantity.
Well, a rebuttal I have is that currency is natural and necessary for cohesiveness and exchange, both of which are vital to the advancement of a society (as well as the creation/maintenance of one). The other guy here:
Admitted to promoting slavery, which is not exactly ideal.

The native Amerindians lost their right to claim the lands of the New World because they lost the lands, just as the tiger dominates his patch of land: because he is powerful, because the hierarchy is in his favour as he has earned it. The right actually lays in the hands of the original owner, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as it created the water we bottle today.
In reality, miners drill into the Earth and gather gold, which is turned into rings that are bought by consumers on a market. Simply because somebody used to own it does not mean that the new owners have illegitimate claims: the previous owners are dead, have passed down the rights, or have had the territory conquered. Like, the original owners, as dictated by the Flying Spaghetti monster (who is dictated by Buddha, by Jesus, by Satan, ad nauseam…).

Then are you proposing a barter system? I'll give you one desk for one car. Not very efficient.

Noting the quality over the quantity is the point against the claim. I can just as easily say the same about you, but that does nothing to address the component of the conversation in question, which is the 2260 pages somehow making the work 'more valid'.

Just calling me stupid doesn't make it not slavery. Anything voluntary cannot be slavery, by definition. I guess that's why you're trying to weasel out of providing definitions for the assertions you are making.

Source on the recidivism rates. Broken down by race might shed some light on the violent criminals.

I'm not making any assertions, I'm pointing out the implications of YOUR assertion that free dental exams equals slavery

I not sure if you're just really thick, a pedant, or trying to play semantics games to avoid the point.

What was meant by "property" in the 19th Century wasn't the same as what is commonly meant by "property" today. I've already explained what that difference is. The "propertied classes" weren't people who owned toothbrushes.

You just claimed that people wouldn't work if they weren't being paid to do it. That suggests that the work doesn't actually make them happy.

A completely irrelevant statement. Methinks you're just trying frame wealth accumulation as more "moral" than actually using it.

You don't sound like you're playing devil's advocate.

Wew. The "capitalism is the market" meme. Capitalism is a mode of production. It's social production for private benefit.

There are plenty of incompetents in high places, my man.

The motivators listed in the video, had you bothered to watch it, were autonomy, mastery and purpose.

So, because the system is basically functional, that's proof of a meritocracy? Feudalism was basically functional, it was run by a insular group of incestuous hereditary dictators.

Ironically, the same "revolution" that must take place to destroy the illegitimate hierarchy defeats the purpose, as the hierarchy is simply shifted to the revolutionaries. Who then distribute the same goods and services that cannot have owners. Except when they do in order to be distributed. If water cannot exist as property of anybody or anything, how do you consume it? How can you determine that this many millilitres of water is yours to consume? Who determines that it is yours if you cannot have anything in your possession to own? Sounds like a one-generation society if you cannot own anything to consume. And if the states cannot exist to have some distribution method (as that would be centralized authority determining the future of a good/service), there can truly be NO ownership. A self-defeating concept.

Again, define slavery. Actually define it. If the dentist does not work for anything and is not compelled by some magic or brain control TO work for free, then the rational agent in our scenario will ask for payment in return of his services. Denying said payment and requiring the dentist to work will have the dentist be in a state of slavery. Assuming the dentist will work for free transcends the rational status our agent operates within and presupposes some mystical being. Do you work for free?

bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rprts05p0510pr.cfm
Racially, they're all within the ballpark, which aligns with my theory that criminality is an lQ issue, not a racial one (i.e. whites, blacks, mestizos share similar crime rates in a given lQ bracket).

The work is more valid because it outlines things like value and the procession of Capital.

Your whole approach is based on a skeletal impression you have on a very basic Smithian idea, that supply and demand is the only principle that makes Capitalist efficient. But that is only the most basic principle in markets anywhere, whether they are capitalist or not. Therefore you cannot really explain why Capital has value, why goods acquire the commodity prices they get, why wages fall or rise, what is surplus labor, surplus value etc. That is phenomena specificaly that have to do with Capitalism on fundamental and structural level, beyond political economy or the level of intentions (what you are doing).

What Capitalist apologists like you always do, is try to convince is us that Capitalism is god, or the same as nature and things have always been this way. But Marx debunks this laughable scholastic argument in the first chapter of Capital.

Pot calling the kettle black, as now you change it from 'property' to "propertied classes". Not discussing individuals, but property itself. My toothbrush is my private property, calling me "thick" isn't going to not make it that. It is not communally shared, it is private, NOT public.
They will refuse work if they are not paid, as people don't want to be slaves forced to work without payment. Only then will it not make them happy. Slavery=sad.
I'm listing what you can do with your money. Do you believe you are entitled to my life savings because you worked alongside me? How did you earn my life savings? My wealth accumulation equation does not include your efforts until you prove otherwise.
How can it be irrelevant to the discussion at-hand if you include your input at the end?
On what basis? Everybody who wants to not have their toothbrush distributed to all people is a capitalist?
In a capitalist system, the consumer is bound by what the consumer wishes to purchase from a private company. Really, it's just the divide between public and private. Within that definition, it does not draw a distinction between consumer v. producer, but it does dictate the ideals both entities are to display.
Why do we pay them, then?
No, it's a meritocracy because it is proven to be a meritocracy. The skilled and qualified succeed and the inept fail.

What are the proportions of the races mentioned? Doesn't seem as if they are equal, there is almost a ten percent difference between white and black recidivism rates.

Your original post: Marx wrote a 2260 page manuscript analysing Capital and how it works beyond the supply and demand meme. But I guess you really btfo us with that one image macro.
Does nothing to touch on the actual arguments made by both sides, just notes that one is longer than the other, ergo the other is more accurate. You know, the "image macros" are sourced from books? Is it now a competition to see who has written longer books? All that paper is taken from trees, which come from the Earth. Sounds pretty capitalist to me…
The whole thread has been centred around "debunking" the concept when it comes to Marx's works.
It has value we give it. Depends on what we do. How much money is printed out?
Let's extend your own logic to you: what 'group I dislike and is bad' always do…

Slaves in the ancient world were mostly paid for their labor.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity

Were they able to leave their profession? People like to be able to be… autonomous. That's what the other guy was talking about.

You have it backward, the one who succeed are deemed skilled and qualified while the ones who fails are deemed inept.
That could be equivalent only and only if other factors such as luck or connections didn't have a play in success.

No, they are not "deemed" inept. I am a failure at being a physics professor because I am not skilled for the position.
I do not get "lucky" to teach for forty years and have a track record of successful graduate students or get "in" because my uncle was dean of the university. It is directly related to my mastery of the subject.

Yes it does and analysed the difference between your approach and a Marxist approach. You can pretend to be dense and ignore the argument, but its still there.

This shows how ignorant you really are of theory.

Value,as a concept, even in Adam Smith's work, has nothing to do with money. Money has to do with commodity prices.

yeah, read Marx. Or watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=UqOtQM8PCvA&index=22&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7

Your original post: Marx wrote a 2260 page manuscript analysing Capital and how it works beyond the supply and demand meme. But I guess you really btfo us with that one image macro.
What nuance is required to pull from that exactly what you were referring to? Ask any of your buddies here, none of them can extrapolate your citations from "it's longer, which means it's better".
I really am stupid, which is a good point against my point about printing currency. If the flow of currency is not a factor when it comes to value, let's print off tons of money. In fact, let's print off so much because it is irrelevant and all those who claim otherwise are "ignorant". Hey, what's this!

Some slaves in the ancient world had it better from freelance workers or even farmers because they had a stable source of income and a job. When their master died slaves were mostly freed.

Of course there are variations, and you could work in the salt mines all your life without getting paid. But my point is that there are variations in the level of slavery. So differentiating from real labor is not useful.

I want to have one apple to eat because I am hungry.
1. Where does the apple come from.
2. How does it leave the hands of the producer?
3. How is it transported to the store.
4. How does the storeowner come to have the apples.
5. How does the apple leave the possession of the storeowner and come across to me?

I am not concerned with the relative prospects of the slave. I will repeat my question: Were they able to leave their profession?

lol you are a complete retard.

I am not wasting my time with an idiot who has not read even the most basic economic works.

Let us extend your own logic and use it against you.
"You are a complete idiot and this is relevant to the topic at-hand because I can prove you are mentally lacking/disabled"
"I do not want to waste my time with you because your ideas are so infantile and incorrect. I could refute them with ease because they are so stupid and retarded, but I am not going to, because they are very easy to do and I do not want to waste my time with you, which is why I typed this response out instead of refuting you"

I'm trying to tell you the context of Oscar Wilde's use of the term "property". He wasn't referring to consumer goods. You can argue that the modern interpretation of the term is the more correct one until you're blue in the face, that doesn't change the fact that he meant something very specific by the term, not your much broader category.

So un-enjoyable tasks suddenly become enjoyable once you get paid to do them? Have you ever actually held a job in your life? Things that aren't enjoyable don't become any more enjoyable because you get some cash for doing them. The money merely gets you to grit your teeth and go through with it, it doesn't make the experience any better.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that saving money means you're not spending it, which means you're not enjoying it. Which is the point.

No, it's more like I don't think my boss is entitled to my labor. That said, I don't really understand what you're trying to get at.

No one wants to redistribute your toothbrush.

Not really. Capitalism isn't directed by consumer decisions. The first and most glaring problem with this view is that it assumes most people have enough money to have a meaningful degree of choice. I live in the cheapest apartment I can find, not because that's what I prefer, but because that's what I can afford. Second, companies do everything they can to manipulate and direct "consumer preference". This is why things like marketing departments exist.

Finally, there is such a thing as market socialism, where producers can have market relations with consumers. It's not an aspect of capitalism.

Capitalism is employer v employee.

Because they need to survive.

Except you've provided absolutely no evidence of this except that the system is basically functional, and you did it with "professional" wage earners, who are far from the highest earners under capitalism.

Yes I don't get pleasure from arguing with autists who cannot even understand basic concepts. You might get this pleasure on arguing about inane things like "mo money=mo value", but it is boring to me.

Read this for homework and then come back to me:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_value

And the purpose of my criticism is the incorrect definition. Weasels one in, then uses that to negate "private property". Consumer goods are private property as they are purchased by a consumer.
Of course, but changing/altering definitions renders the phrase useless. Private property includes toothbrushes and the apple that I just purchased, as well as the land I eat it on and the water I drink. They are mine because I paid for them. The person who owned it gave it away for a price they were willing to let it go for, just as their father did, who conquered it from another who sold it to another who inherited it from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Yes. Nobody wants to work in sanitation, but they are paid excellently.
Yes, they do.
Subjective. I enjoy what I do with my money precisely because I am the master of its future. I can burn it and still feel happy.
Why do you work for him, then?
Then you mean to say that I own my toothbrush.
It most certainly is. The consumer dictates which products rise to the top by supporting them. Otherwise the concept of a boycott would not exist because the consumer's decisions would be useless.
Because people failed at life.
I will be able to let you know if you have failed at life once you answer the following: how old are you. Do you have schooling. Do you live in a wealthy neighbourhood (cost of living analysis). How much do you earn.
What is the purpose of a marketing department is the consumer does not make decisions that alter any outcome?
We are not all professors because we are not skilled enough. The merit of the individual with respect to the trade dictates how well they succeed in said field. Professional wage earners like lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. all earn much more than the unskilled workers. The entire concept of skill is applied to the market for the purpose that I am trying to demonstrate.

"I am much more smarter than you are and I can determine your mental capacity because I have tested for this before; the evidence I do not need to provide"
"Your ideas are so simple that I do not have to actually formulate points against them because they are so dumb and I am smart, so I do not waste time to respond to your posts, even though I have responded twice now"

Jesus Christ you're fucking retarded

Private property includes what I have purchased. It includes what I consume as means of maintaining homeostasis, as well as the physical land I occupy. What is not private property of mine is the computer you own that you are typing on right now.

On the matter, there are ores used in the device you are using to connect with me. How can you reconcile your ownership of "natural products" that are supposed to be unowned? Why do you pay for utilities from a state (most likely, unless you purchase bottled water but I don't believe many of you are in the tax bracket to be able to afford bottled water) that illegitimately distributes that which they do not own? Property for me, but not for thee?

More like "At some point when a guy keep bringing how checkers sucks when criticizing chess, maybe i should stop bothering but not completely because i can't help myself being baited"

lol

lolll

"I am very enlightened and so much smarter than the drooling retard before me that I cannot be bothered to reply at all, even though I have replied three times now"
"The errors in his definitions are as overt as the difference between chess and checkers, but because I am very smart and he is very dumb (this is a really good point, by the way, namecalling always hits home), I don't have to actually explain how or why he is wrong, provide definitions, and elaborate refuting the central point he is making because he is playing checkers while I am playing chess"
"Everything that I have to reply more than three times to is bait"

...

No constructive discussion can happen under this basis

When the guy keep making the same point after being adressed on it, the possibility of your interlocutor arguing in bad faith can't be dismissed.

That's actually the way it was used in the 19th Century. The term "property" greatly broadened over the 20th century.

And, no, just because you'd like for him to have been complaining about consumerism doesn't mean he was. He was criticizing the process of the reproduction of capital.

The average earnings of garbage men is $33,800 a year. Hardly a king's ransom. Your pay is determined by the value of your abstract labor as a commodity on the market, it isn't directly related to the desirability of the work. In fact, frequently the least desirable work is also the lowest paid, and the ranks are filled with desperate people who need work to survive.

How does it feel being NEET?

You act like a person who hasn't actually handled money before. Frequently, you aren't the master of its future. Rent and bills eat up most of it and the rest goes to the cheapest of whatever you can get.

This, once again, implies a degree of consumer choice with necessitates actually having enough money that you have a meaningful choice. It also implies that consumers are educated about their consumption choices, when usually they are not.

Because I prefer not to starve.

Yes.

W E W
E
W

Petty moralizing doesn't defend the point. I said that the claim that consumer choice drives capitalism implies that consumers have enough money to have a reasonable amount of choice. Saying "uhhh… people with financial constraints failed at life so it's okay" doesn't defend you claim.

Wew, looks like we have a little captain of industry here.

I'm guessing either spoiled rich kid or NEET LARPer. Heavily betting the latter.

The point here is that capitalism is directed by it's corporate hierarchy and its need to produce a profit. Rational consumer decisions blah blah blah is a meme.

Lawyers, doctors and engineers aren't paid more because they're more skilled. They're paid more because their abstract labor power calls a higher price as a commodity on the market.

And you just completely ignore the second point. Wage earners are not the people who earn the most money in our system.

Wilde referring to private property does not include the land I have purchased? Let's limit the definition to only land. I purchased and own the plot of land. Wilde supports the negation of this property. I ask the following: on what basis is the land not mine. I am the rightful owner of it. We have courts to decide the land, permits proving ownership, and arbiters to determine a ruling. Who determines what is and is not permissible property. Is all property not allowed to be owned (just confined to land). Is it all to be communal? What happens if I wish to have a plot of land that only I own. I pay to have the next guy sell his land to me. What is the future of this transaction?
If a state cannot exist, who determines the future of the trade (currency for land, vice versa)? Who seizes the land? If it is the revolutionaries (who aim to destroy the illegitimate hierarchy of those who have and those who have not), how is re-establishing the hierarchy in their own favour doing anything to eliminate hierarchies?

It depends on the brand of socialism, but it comes down to, but in general you'll either get to keep the land, but only so long as you are personally using it, or the land is collectivized and is owned by everyone that uses it, or no one owns it at all and what's done with it is decided by the community.

Does this property include land that my toothbrush is on?
That's 33k more than if you did nothing. In what currency? In what region? In LA, obviously.
Labour is work, by definition. You just refuted yourself. It is not abstract if you just defined it as being a garbageman. The labour that the garbageman signs on to complete is what determines his pay grade.
Has to do with the skill required, too. When I mentioned sanitation, I was referring to sewer workers, too (work.chron.com/salary-sewage-treatment-worker-6956.html). According to that, that's 20 per hour. Work full time, that is a respectable living.
Namecalling doesn't build your point, it only illustrates the lack of a point beyond "you are dumb/smelly/uneducated, but I don't have to provide evidence."
I choose to own property to pay bills on it. I choose to take loans out to pay the bills back on them. Of course, outside of what is necessary. I keep on forgetting that financial responsibility doesn't exist when finances are eliminated. Even the barter system is lost with your ilk.
What was the profit margin Apple made on its products throughout the years. That money doesn't come from thin air. The consumers pay for their goods. Information is readily available and directly refutes your assertion that the consumer has no impact. Remember, boycotts wouldn't exist otherwise.
Speak for yourself.
So stop complaining. You choose to work for him; if the pay is inadequate, get a better job. Market yourself.
Which means I own the toothbrush and all that composes it. Like the material it was produced with. Which is garnered through some false ownership claims (not mentioning my own).
By themselves, yes. Average earning are not zero, which means they have at least one dollar worth of leverage.
The "degree of choice" is dependent on how financially responsible you are. If you are not wise, you fail at life.
That does not answer any of the questions. How old are you. Do you have schooling. Do you live in a wealthy neighbourhood (cost of living analysis). How much do you earn.
Why do they have any choice, then. On what basis do they choose Apple phones over Samsung? The preference is, in itself, proof that they are not completely random and retarded. They have choice because they do not like Samsung for not being as customizable, or vice versa.
They are paid more precisely because they are more skilled. They are experts in their fields, which requires a degree of accuracy the average Joe does not have. You need to provide substantive proof showing that the average doctor is not actually skilled. Or that the average lawyer does not have a grasp of the law. Or that the engineer cannot even add. That is an enormous claim that you have made.
Everybody earns a wage. Even the CEO people have salaries.

The "community" ought not be centralized by any means, or derive authority in any sense of the word, as that will constitute a state, which is not permissible. Who determines that I am not using it? The same people who hate illegitimate hierarchies until it favours them? Who is the arbiter of these cases?

No, not everyone do. Actually, the ones who get the most money don't get it from wage but from capital (shares, bonds, derived products and so on)

plus CEO's aren't owners of coporations btw.

Hahahaha holy shit you've obviously never been anywhere near academia huh

This is very simple, the more you are concerned with possessions an property, the less you care about and acummulate individual personal wealth of free will, creativity, intellect, artistic taste, wisdom and strength to disobey that is unqantifiable in materialist discourse.

Seems to me that your models of market equilibrium are just a fantasy and don't take human nature into account.

I'm no anarchist, my man.

Take a look at my flag again.

All who work (the context that is being discussed). They don't actually get the lump from their wages? I just got my paycheck, where does that come from if not from the salary I am supposed to get?

Appealing to the mystical authority instead of citing the arguments made.

Like I said, fortune cookie monk bullshit. Not a substantive point.

Kind of like the paradox of destroying hierarchies while establishing one and the bastardization of central authority (because of no true scotsman), until you realize you need it because your utopia cannot function on IOUs.

Fair enough, then you are rational in that you realize a state is necessary to distribute the earnings from the haves to the have nots. I just disagree with your principles, but your implementation is sound (however foolish the goal may be).

...

Depends on if it's useful land. Probably.

Burgerland. That's the average an American trash guy makes.

Yes, it's more than if you did nothing, but it's still not a lot.

It's capitalism that abstracts it. You're paid based on what the abstract labor time of a garbageman is worth as a commodity on the market.

>Has to do with the skill required, too. When I mentioned sanitation, I was referring to sewer workers, too (work.chron.com/salary-sewage-treatment-worker-6956.html). According to that, that's 20 per hour. Work full time, that is a respectable living.
40k a year is alright, but it's hardly a king's ransom like you were implying it was. People who do basically nothing all day make way more.

Saying that getting paid for an activity makes it more enjoyable makes me think you've never actually gotten paid to do something before. At least, not on a regular and official basis.

Yeah, but I didn't choose to need to eat, drink and stay warm and dry as a necessity for survival, and that's what those bills are going towards.

Yes, it comes from all the workers they exploit.

No, actually. Boycotts show just how little the average consumer actually knows about the products they buy that they need to have a whole political movement to make an informed decision.

I speak for most people. In many cases, information on consumption choices simply isn't available at all. All you see is the item and its price, not the production process that produced it.

Yes, but I don't have the choice to not live in capitalism. I am ultimately a slave to the capitalist system, and I simply get to choose the nature of my drudgery.

We don't care about your fucking toothbrush.

Nothing costs a dollar, idiot. Is this legit a troll, or do you have this little experience with the real world?

Moralistic nonsense. You can make a vast amount of money simply by already having a vast amount of money. Other people are put into a cycle of debt they can't get out of. The world you live in where people's wealth is a measure of their personal fiscal responsibility doesn't exist.

Oh, you were asking me? I wasn't complaining about myself. I disagree with capitalism on an structural and theoretical level, I think I'm doing fine for myself personally. I know you faggots can't see beyond the individual and your politics not being an extension of your own pathologies might seem baffling.

No one that actually knew anything about Apple products compared to other products would choose Apple. Apple is a testament to the fact that you can get massive sales with branding and marketing alone.

You don't know how capitalism works. When you get employed, you're essentially selling your labor time to an employer. Thus, your labor takes on a commodity form. As a wage earner, therefore, your wage is dependent entirely on the value of your labor as a commodity. That may or may not have anything to do with "skill". Gaining skills is simply one way of increasing the value of your labor as a commodity by converting it to a form that is higher in demand and/or lower in supply. But what ultimately determines pay is this this logic, not skill.

Not true. And CEOs don't make most of their money from salaries. The big money isn't in wages.

You also missed the entire point of the Oscar Wilde quote. He was pointing to the way capitalism creates a situation where human beings pursue endless accumulation of wealth and lose any semblance of self development or real agency because they turn into literal addicts.

Oh, I'm not trying to distribute or redistribute anything.

The goal is worker control of the means of production and democratic organization of the economy. The welfare state is an element of bourgeois society that will be obsolete in socialism.

The authority's not 'mystical', it's me. I have a doctorate in physics and years of personal, direct experience of the field that you suggest is a meritocracy. I'm telling you, it fucking well isn't a meritocracy. Overall success in physics (as in any academic field) is a function of the amount of free time you have to sink into practising it. So straight away talented working-class kids get shafted in undergrad because they have to work to pay tuition, and didn't have extra tutoring during primary and secondary education. Success in graduate and post-graduate physics is tangentially related to your skill at physics, but is primarily related to your ability to steal underlings' and colleagues' research ideas in order to keep up with the inhuman pace of publishing demanded by the administration. Success beyond that is firstly being in the right place at the right funeral, secondly about kissing government, corporate, and university admin ass, thirdly about playing politics to undermine other labs, fourthly about squeezing every last drop out of your grad and post-grad underlings, and, in very distant fifth place, your skill as a physicist.

Assuming "stop wanting to have stuff, it's all just otherworldly stuff" is an argument to begin with. It's an opinion on a matter, not reasoning.

Does the state you support determine that?
Okay. More than nothing is better than nothing.
How abstract is it if you are not even a garbageman (that I know of), yet you can define and quantify it from some reasonable framework. Define abstract.
I never said it was engineer-tier, but that it was great blue collar work for the average Joe.
Do you know where I work? Are you so sure as to claim that you do? With what evidence?
Homeostasis=owning property. You can choose to rent, or to get a loan. Some financial options are… optional.
There we go. Are you Chinese? As in, have you lived in China? The workers are begging to be employed, as that is a huge opportunity for many of them. It's the difference between something and nothing which you conveniently dismissed above. By definition, cannot exploit the person if they are begging for it and willingly engage in it, just as you cannot rape a consenting individual, by definition.
Nowhere do you refute the effect a boycott has. By the virtue of the decision, the consumer has made an effort to abstain from a service/product. That shows the minimal response necessary to actually be sentient with respect to a stimulus. They are cognizant of their surroundings, they aren't lemmings.
No, you don't.
What would you like to replace it with. Do you believe in currency existing? Free trade? I am not an anarchist, so I am not a capitalist. I agree that it isn't voluntary, but it is, essentially, rooted in the hierarchy I mention above.
Yet the worker is exploited somehow because entering into voluntary contracts is slavery.
Namecalling only compounds your lack of a point against mine. You claim: that consumer choice drives capitalism implies that consumers have enough money to have a reasonable amount of choice.
As in, a "reasonable amount of choice", as you say. My response does not assert the exact cost of anything. I am pointing out the obvious: the earnings of people in the Western world amount to at least over one dollar (in reality, it is much more which directly refutes your "not enough money" nonsense; a simple GDP map does this but I want you to learn for yourself), which is at-odds with your claim.
I'm not arguing for a moral framework, I'm being pragmatic. I'm not saying that we must not do 'x' or 'y', but that those who are financially illiterate will reap what they sow.

How capitalism actually works

Disagreement isn't a point against anything, it is an opinion.
More assertions without proof. Can you prove my sexual history? Where is your evidence?
And? That means they are successful. They can market themselves. How they do it is irrelevant if it works.
Not really a point until you prove where I was wrong and how.
If you are a 'per hour' employee.
If a commodity is defined as a raw material, then no. Time is not tangible. If by anything useful, then yes.
Didn't you say earlier: 40k a year is alright, but it's hardly a king's ransom like you were implying it was. People who do basically nothing all day make way more.
Lol, you did. Right here:
How can it be a consistent theory (i.e. dependent on your labour) if it is not consistent and varies. How can I work 'x' labour more than you but get paid less? Is this some perversion of a natural force? You realize that there are jobs that are not labour intensive, but they are paid much more?
Those who are more efficient will succeed. That's why you see more males who are construction workers because they are more stronger, on average, than females.
Yeah, that's what I'm claiming. Your time is worth more because, like you say, you are "gaining skill". Many are paid for their time because their time is worth more than mine precisely because they are skilled.
That refutes what you mentioned above.
That's a lot of talk without any evidence. Everybody is paid for the work that they do, unless they are a slave. I didn't say CEOs make most of their money FROM salaries, stop twisting my words. Improve your reading comprehension, you even quoted me.

Yet they can choose what to do with their money. They have control over its future, what profession to pursue, how to spend/with what, etc.
Again, waxing poetic about nonsense and how "private property should be removed". It's an opinion, it does nothing to present valid reasoning. One can easily extend the same emotional claims back and whine about a Communist system being devoid of agency of free will to do with your funds/property as you please.

Why do you support democracy? That assumes everybody is rational and can vote for the doctor and not the sweetshop owner, yet you spent the last few posts whining about how retarded the consumer is.

"I am Mr. Academia himself. Yeah, the bastion of rational thought. So here are some unverifiable assertions without any proof of my credentials. Not that that would mean anything because all the assertions are anecdotes that I'm extending without actually testing to see if they are true"
Studying the topic and gaining mastery is what I am claiming sets the average Joe apart from the professor.
There are those who are truly gifted. Take it from me, I am a super duper gifted Mensa member who is very smart and rational. I am the authority on these things and my credentials make me more right without inquiry.
If you are actually a physics major, test your hypothesis that you just made. Right now, it's just drivel (with a HUGE implication if proven true). You realize you might just prove that the entire field is a sham? That it's not about skill as much as it is intellectual theft?
Prove it.

I'm not going to post identifying personal information just to win an internet argument with a fascist you loopy cunt. I've got a doctorate in physics, I'm way too fucking smart for that.

Marx defined labor as both mental and physical exertion. On a scientific level, your brain actually consumes way more energy than your muscles. So any job that requires you to think on any level expends some of your energy.

Your definition is self-imposed. Commodities are defined as both goods and services, thus labor is a commodity. Raw material may include both goods needed to carry out the service, as well as food which provides you energy to carry out the service.

dude you just posted personal information by saying you have a doctorate in physics. Don't concede any info to these morons.

Labour is related to physical work. That is the term it is used to describe. It can include other forms of "mental labour"; this still does nothing to equate time spent working with the worth of a good or service. I can delay the creation of a car and make it worth more. Who records the time spent? What of time spent to create garbage, like Hatian mud pies?
Pot calling the kettle black.
Yes.
Circular logic. You've asserted it, but not proved it. Time is not a raw material itself. The "labour" you are referring to is not static, it directly refers to the TIME spent working that is the sole (and only, because fuck currency) determinant of the value of 'x' on the markets (that somehow exist without exchange methods goods/services).

Wrong.

(Capital Vol I, chapter 1)

Wrong

>A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.)[12] Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.

(on the same page)

In a capitalist economy, time is not sold. That's rubbish. In the same way that the capitalist pays for a kilogram of sugar to make products (measured by the scales, kilogram), he pays for a certain amount of labour power (measured by the clock, hour). Labour power, just like sugar, can be of a good or bad quality. Are you saying that lawyers for example don't provide commodities, because they bill customers by the hour?

No my definition of a commodity was derived from wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity
Obviously not the most academic source, but it wasn't solely self-derived.

No its not. It is also releated to the skill it takes to generate the object, and the amount of the commodity produced. For instance, it takes months to grow and harvest wheat, if time where the sole determinant of its value the price of wheat would be astronomical.

Furthermore a highly skilled tradesmen can offer a service as a commodity. You hire him to do something you can't do. He sells his labor as a commodity. He may also charge a lot of money to do a job that takes an hour because he can. Simultaneously you higher somebody to do some easy landscaping that takes a full day, but at a lower rate, because the skill level needed to do that job is less.

So no labor is not solely dependent on time, skill factors in, as well as knowledge. A highly experienced tradesmen can charge more than a noob.

But even ignoring all that:
I don't have to prove a definition:

shit, fucked up that greentext

In economics, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs. Often the item is fungible. Economic commodities comprise goods and services.

In economics, a service is a transaction in which no physical goods are transferred from the seller to the buyer. The benefits of such a service are held to be demonstrated by the buyer's willingness to make the exchange. Public services are those that society (nation state, fiscal union, region) as a whole pays for. Using resources, skill, ingenuity, and experience, service providers benefit service consumers.

Wage labour, delivery of services by person for payment

This is a term that he just pulled out of his ass. Meaningless without clear definition and applicability in the marketplace. It cannot be determined because it is not defined how many hours went into creating the iPhone, from mining its materials to transporting it to crafting it.
This is a self-refuting concept. There can be no marketplace without currency or barter, but there is some "socially necessary" timeframe? As determined by and recorded by who? The state that, when introduced, renders the whole concept meaningless? It assumes equality when there is none. The passage mentions how they are 'homogeneous', but does nothing to actually explain how and in what way they are as they are (the "units").
This is the manipulation of definitions. You cannot have a labour-based economy without central authority distributing it and acting as an arbiter for recording the information that is vital to the marketplace, as well as deciding who gets what and based on what reasoning.

No, I am saying that time is not tangible. A worker offers his time in exchange for 'x' wage, but the time itself is not tangible, like a commodity. It is useful, but not corporeal. It's related to the service they are providing, but the service itself is the determinant of their wage, not the labour. You are just describing an hourly wage without the currency. It doesn't make sense.

Pointing out how you can warp definitions of labour, but get pissy when you accuse another of doing the same.

Yes, all of this, yes. Obviously. But you cannot operate solely off of "blank per hour", you require a wage.
You mean he provides a service. There is no need to warp terminology to fit your theories that cannot be proven. He is offering to do 'x' for $10 per hour.
Currency cannot exist, but rates do? What over time? What is the unit over time you are describing? Sure as shit can't be a currency.
Yes, services. It's reductionist to claim that it's just "time in and of itself, with the skill but without the currency". It is done deliberately to base the value off of labour, itself.

Actually, throughout human history water use has been free in plenty of places. AFAIK it is (or has been until recently) free in Scotland. There are technical reasons for that. On the side of those who make and maintain a system of aqueducts and water pipes, you have gigantic costs building it, the costs keeping the system in operation are comparatively small and do not vary in proportion to the amount consumed, and not using enough water can cause problems for that infrastructure (I mean physical problems, not financial ones here). I'm not a history buff, but I think the Romans had a mix of quite extensive public water-using infrastructure in combination with fees for private usage, and these fees were based on pipe width (you didn't turn it on or off, the water was always flowing).

Given how these things physically work, it is wasteful nonsense to have competing water pipe systems in one place, and a private monopoly will fleece you, so it makes sense to have these under public control. Whether charging people according to volume used even makes sense doesn't have a general answer, it depends on the physical reality of the particular place.

I can't make sense of that post. Do you really believe that when the meaning of a word changes throughout history, that it's okay to go back to an old text mentioning that word, then inject the new meaning into it, to "find" a flaw in what the author argued for?

...

forgot flag

what is this

Not really, a capitalist must endless recycle capital by re investing into their business, if they don't then they risk being squashed by the competition. You wind up with a situation where they have to endlessly pursue capital and profit just to stay afloat, and the accumulate obscene amounts of wealth that they will never even use. Such people often also display symptoms of addiction to profit, they are literally junkies.

Again this isn't true, they are limited by their resources, class position, access to education, market forces, etc.

No you can't, since communism doesn't impose any restrictions on what you can do with your personal property. Business is impossible under communism because money doesn't exist and post-scarcity has been achieved. You are probably referring to socialism, but even then you'd be wrong because agency is actually expanded for most of the population, since workers have greater say over politics and economy, which they were largely excluded from before. Furthermore poverty is more seriously addressed meaning that people can now afford to live actual lives instead of scratching a meagre existence out of the dirt. Even in terms of starting a business, all socialism does is prevent you from appropriating the wealth produced by others without their consent. You want to run a hierarchical enterprise? Go ahead, you just have to convince the workers who built that enterprise to not exercise their rightful agency over the product of their labour.

Or, maybe, an economic issue you fucking retard.

if a sports car was no longer a status symbol how many people would want one?

So it was gathered, reduced down to consumable version, and packaged to the people with nobody being paid, all free of charge. That is the definition of free. And, like I said, a society cannot operate off of IOUs.
All of this assumes currency exists for fees to exist.
There is no public. "Public" refers to a state the people elect. There is no state in a Communist nation. It is simply the people. We all just go and take control of other people's aqueducts, then somehow become the unbiased arbiter of how the water is to be distributed. No conflicts of interest there.
Then why do you post the image now, in today's context. Private property must be abolished as it is today? I don't want it abolished, ever. Whichever definition you wish to alter, it is bunk all the way down.

Prove to me how that is a necessity.
So the answer is to take it from them because I don't like what you aren't doing with your money?
The average Joe has the choice to go into various fields. I never said ALL the fields, but he has great choice.
Re-read the thread, the entire post, even your own post, is whining about property rights and how you dislike what I am doing with my own assets.
That is an unstable society.
Why do you support democracy? That assumes everybody is rational and can vote for the doctor and not the sweetshop owner.
Currency doesn't exist, remember. There is no poverty because everybody earns nothing when currency doesn't exist. The state (that doesn't exist) decides who gets how much).
Yeah, nobody is robbing any banks. That has been illegal for quite some time now. If you think that some Chinese guy producing an iPhone=he owns the iPhone now, then I suggest starting your own business and looking into the backend operations to create the iPhone as a unit.
If you are self-employed, yes. If I just make an iPhone myself, from nothing (let's forget copyright and all that for now), then I deserve what I create. But if you are willingly entered into a contract with your employer and agree to assemble the parts to make the basic unit of an iPhone (the packaging guys are down the line, not you), you don't then own that. You merely assembled it, you did not create it. You work at McDonalds, it's the same story. You don't own the burger. Just assuming a stance of entitlement without actually justifying the ownership (this is the same ownership that is bad when it's against our favour, like rich guys doing things we don't like with their money) in question.

digamo.free.fr/keen2011.pdf
Read it, faggot.
Or watch it in glorious HD:
youtube.com/watch?v=E6Gb4tk-z_s
youtube.com/watch?v=jiJMzDtGOlE

And this is work by a capitalist economist.

>water reduced down to consumable version, and packaged
How many levels of burger are you on?
Your "argument" fails basic logic. First, you go to an old text and inject a current meaning into an old word and declare to the world that the text doesn't make sense to you that way. When this is pointed out, you complain about people redefining things so they don't make sense, as if that was a conspiracy against your ideology. But the arrow of time only goes in one direction. It's not people in the past changing meanings away from what they are today. So, suppose the change was deliberate. Who did that, genius, the Marxists who used it in the generic way like the capitalism apologists they criticized? No, these changes were made by capitalism apologists post Marx.

Bottled water. Consumer goods have to have the brand on them.
Coming from the guy who admits business is impossible, yet trade occurs.
Yeah, this is the whole point of contention. I am aware of what Wilde is referring to when he is talking about private property. He means the land I own. When I mention toothbrushes, I am speaking in terms of what I own on my plot of land. The assets I use to purchase the goods, too.
Private property used to not be defined as private property. Okay, prove it.
No, it's because private property has always meant what it has meant.
From: jstor.org/stable/650661
It has always referred to land ownership. But now, your property includes what you have now. I am opposed to all forms of destroying any property, be it land or otherwise.

Because if they don't reinvest into their business to create more products at a lower cost or to improve quality then their competitors will, and will drive them out of business. If you deny this is the case then you deny the work of every pro-market economist since Smith.

The answer is to remove the system that forced them into self-induced slavery by democratizing the means of production.

And under socialism he would have access to all fields, with out regards to costs or market forces.

Private and personal property aren't the same thing. Even under full communism your personal property (ie anything that isn't being used for commercial purposes) would be yours and yours alone.

This is about freedom, and which system provides the greatest freedom to the greatest number. That system is undeniably the one that extends agency over politics and economy to as many people as possible, ie democracy. If you want to argue against it fine but don't pretend you believe in freedom then.

You're mixing up communism and socialism. Money and the state exist under socialism, but not under communism. Communism can really only exist in a state of post scarcity such as full automation, so deciding who gets what would be irrelevant since there would be no limitations to what we can produce. As far socialism goes the population would determine what they need directly through democratic means such as town hall meetings with officials.

You can either see freedom as something to earn or something you ought to be born with. As far as I'm concerned, a system that tells you "you can be free if you do X, of which there is no guarantee of success" isn't a really free society. Therefore, a socialist society which presents the worker with the freedom to exercise economic agency through workplace democracy and democratic planning unconditionally, is superior in freedom to one in which this agency isn't guaranteed. The capitalist says "you can be free if you do X", the socialist says "you are free".

In response to your last point what gives the employer the rightful ownership over the product of the labour of the workers? Because they agreed to it? How is a situation where they can agree to work for him or starve a free arrangement? It's no different than having a gun to your head. The simple fact is that the workers created that wealth, and the capitalist is using force to take it from them. Can the workers quit? Sure, but they'll starve if they do. The fact is that if workers under socialism want to surrender the product of their labour to somebody else they are free to do so, but unlike under capitalism, they are also free to not do so. And before you trot out the "just start a business" meme I'll point out that 80% of businesses fail within 10 years, which is of course assuming that they even have the capacity to get one up and running, meaning that the vast majority of the time starting a business isn't a viable option.

The simple fact is that socialism provides much greater levels of individual freedom and agency by putting economic and political power directly in the hands of each and every citizen, not making it a far away goal that they have to jump over countless hurdles and often step on thousands of people to achieve.

Endlessly recycling capital, at 100%? What is the purpose of the endless pursuit if not to generate profit. By the very nature of profit, it is not spent (i.e. not mandatory spending, but optional). If profits exist, then it isn't a 100% expenditure. The rest I agree with. Sounds like you know how to maintain a business, though.
Yeah, that is a lot of nonsense that doesn't answer the question. What is the future of funds other people have that you dislike?
Do licenses exist? Like, can he be a licensed physician, or is it all for naught if I can get to be one without anything.
You kind of weaselled your way out of answering the previous question about the explicit future of my assets. Who determines it as being "for commercial purposes". The state (that cannot exist) can be the only arbiter to decide what is what and who keeps what, not the 'unbiased revolutionaries'. Yet a state cannot exist.
That doesn't answer my question: That assumes everybody is rational and can vote for the doctor and not the sweetshop owner.
I'm not! You keep on calling me a capitalist, but I do not support freedom. Stop taking your namecalling bs so seriously.
Call be when fusion is achieved. Until then, it's just fortune telling nonsense.
Because they are not manipulating the future to guarantee your preferred result. Whether you succeed or not is dependent on you. That is freedom, for you.
Again, do licenses exist? Why don't we abolish all credentials and let me become a physics professor. We'll see how sustainable your ideal future is after one generation.
Yeah, you just answered your own question.

You kind of weaselled your way out of answering the previous question about the explicit future of my assets. That relates to "individual freedom" quite a bit.
The greatest inequality is the equality of the unequal. Again, it assumes the masses will vote for the doctor and not the sweetshop owner.

Employment exists because civilization exists. We occupy specific niches in our communities and offer services/goods for payment. It cannot be that everybody is equal when they are not, that everybody has the opportunity to be 'x', even though you need to abolish credentials that created the distribution of skilled v. unskilled. Finally, when you claim that there can be "no business", the civilization will always converge towards the more stable society, which includes business practices with currency.
If you stop working altogether, yes. Or you can quit your job and grow your own food.
Presupposes the same ownership that cannot exist. You never owned it to begin with.
Is that the genesis of the catchphrase "those who do not work, do not starve"? Or was it the other way around. Doesn't really make sense, there can be no unbiased arbiter deciding who receives what and in what quantity without a state.
Because the majority fail=don't even try? Why do you go to school, you are not guaranteed employment. Why do you get up from bed to catch the bus, you are not guaranteed to get to the bus. If you put in effort and plan your steps to determine any outcomes, you can succeed.

In the transitional stage before communism, socialism can't have a state. Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Communism doesn't come instantly.

Mistyped, socialism can have a state.

How do you go from distributing land/assets that isn't used properly (channel being a state) to the people just doing it by themselves? A community cannot operate off of IOUs.

Yeah this is a big load of "the system i am used to is the only possible system."
Division of labor without employment can and has existed

You ask a very complex question which depends on several factors. For example, if there is a means of production, like a factory or whatever where you employ people, it would most likely be collectivized. But if your land is just a piece of earth with your house on it there would be no reason to "redistribute it".

Ah ah ah, that is pretty low of you to claim that I said that is the ONLY system that has ever existed. There have been other societies, but we have coalesced into the most efficient and viable system. If employment is "the condition of having paid work", then the opposite (which you are claiming) does not include paid work because currency does not exist in a Communist system. People are either slaves, the state (that, like currency, cannot exist) determines how much of what people get for just payment (just don't call it paid work!), or the entire community runs on IOUs, which is not logically feasible after a few favours are expired.

Yes, but why? That's my question, why.
More questions than answers. Why is this exempt from collectivization?

We know, that's why money has to be abolished.

Then you just replace currency with… un-currency. One dollar backed for its worth by many factors, one of which includes the rate at which the currency is printed. But in your system, that cannot exist because that's centralized authority determining some future for fiscal policy (which means it is not true scotsman, etc.), and because it is currency which cannot exist.
I mean IOU as in literally "I owe you". I do this WITHOUT PAY, INVOLVING CURRENCY, so that you will owe me. Who decides what is paid out (or not paid out).
Let's use a scenario, I feel like we can get working better.

I am a farmer and I grow apples. I have a huge apple farm and lots of customers. My employees willingly work for me and I pay them to work for me. Then Communism happens. 1. What happens to my apple farm land. 2. How do I "pay" my workers. 3. How do I get my apples to my customers without currency, what is the exchange. If it's barter, just call it a barter system. I am not giving them away for free. It's my property.

That's a lot of presumption based on one snarky point about the nature of currency.
anyway

(Your example is a wonderful example of ideology though, down to it embodying a petit-bourgoise image of employment. I am the nice friendly farmer down the road, not Monsanto… I'm no socialist, but jesus christ this saccharine shit would certainly make me get out the gun.)

Your house is not a means of production which you can use to extract profit, unless you make some autistically idiotic example. Factories, and means of production in general, become collectivized precisely because socialism is also the elimination of capitalism. This is not a moral reason, just self interest.

Include what I mentioned before it (One dollar backed for its worth by many factors, one of which includes the rate at which the currency is printed). The point is that currency cannot exist.
The questions still remain, despite your distaste.

Why should the means of production be subject to collectivization?

To eliminate capitalism.

Why should the means of production be subject to collectivization in order to eliminate capitalism?

Because the means of production operated for profit can not exist in socialism or communism.

So means of production for profit does not exist in socialism/communism? Is that because currency doesn't exist, or is there literally no profit in any sense with any "currency, but don't call it that" type of unit. Is it a barter system? What are the exchange rates?
Also, why is operating for profit a bad thing. Explain your reasoning, not just what you want to see.

Stop being autistic you moron, they exist, but are not privately owned. Again, I am not arguing morally here.

Currency exists? Profit exists? Elaborate, you just said "they exist, but are not privately owned". If the former, the posters above beg to differ. If the latter, in what sense of the word. How can it be a profit. In what way/how.
I'm not asking for your moral compass, I am asking you for your reasoning. I'm not asking you to tell my why 'x' is morally incorrect or whatever, I am asking your to provide your rationale for why the means of production should be subject to collectivization in order to eliminate capitalism. As in, what is the purpose behind the decision.

Will be.
Because capitalism is inherently prone to crises and blah blah blah.

book, read.

Currency does not exist. Most possibly a system of labour vouchers comes to be, which no, is not money. There is no profit, production is done according to need.

Capitalism cannot exist alongside socialism. And the private ownership of the means of production is at the core of capitalism.

False. I quote you directly: Because the means of production operated for profit can not exist in socialism or communism.
It is well known that we are NOT under a socialist/communist system. You previously state: To eliminate capitalism. This all hints to the fact that it is not a future which has arrived yet, so "should be" (as in, the desire to have that outcome be the future) is the correct tense. "Will be" assumes that you know it will be eliminated. With what evidence do you arrive at that conclusion?
What an air-tight elaboration. Try to actually type out your argument, even your friends typed out what their thoughts were. You are literally "ugh, read a book that I agree with"-tier.

Labour vouchers? So a labour-backed currency?
As determined by/distributed by?
Yes, but why is the bad and why should this be disallowed. You are just stating what you do not want to be, not why it is not supposed to be. I understand that they cannot exist together, but what is your rationale for one system over the other.

Labour vouchers stand for labour realized that can be exchanged for products which also had labour put into their production.

Computers. More so in the modern day.

I am a socialist because the world under capitalism is a dead end. Wars for profit, exploitation, uncontrolled growth which leads to extinction in a world with finite resources. It is simply unsustainable.

So it's just exchanging currency in the form of proof of hours worked as the "money".
We'll call this a central bank.
So a centralized system records all the hours worked and distributes vouchers showing proof of hours worked that can be used to purchase goods/services on a market. How is this any different than what we have now? You just want it to be rooted in labour/work, which it already is: your salary.
In what way is it a dead end?
Capitalism is not a system of governance, it does not dictate for nations to go to war. Wasn't the USSR at war for most of its term, with the US and the Third Reich? War is unavoidable.
How does it exploit anything? I can easily say that seizing the means of production from things you dislike is exploiting them, too.
Uncontrolled growth in what sense.
Resources are inherently finite, like oil (within our timeframe). How can you change the physical properties of a substance, especially when credentials are obliterated and everybody can become a physics professor.

If you want to call it money, whatever, but it's not.

Wages by their nature stand for some of the labour done, with the rest extracted for profit. Not the full value of labour.

You are trying to use terms which have specific meanings in left theory as if they were common words.

Capitalism doesn't govern, but the governments in place lend themselves to its preservation. The search for profit leads to doing things regardless of consequences for others. Like wars for resources and constant interventions in foreign countries as if tradition for the US.

Russian and German conflict was started by Germans. Fairly obviously, this war was for the profit of German bourgeoisie and those connected to the German state. The war with US because any threats to capitalism will be met with violence on some level. And the USSR was one.

By exploitation, one refers to the extraction of surplus value from the value of labor, the difference which is the wage.

Beyond what is sustainable. Global warming, as an example, which is of course mostly ignored.

You are arguing against a strawman, but I'm not that guy.

Yeah, just proof of hours worked used to purchase goods/services in a market.
First need to prove ownership of the work put in, otherwise it's a false claim.
Governments imposing taxes pervert the market value. "State capitalism" is an oxymoron.
So the rich guys declared war on the Soviets? Why?
I guess that's why the Communist system was pushed into Asian nations, then. Because any threats to non-capitalism will be met with violence.
Prove your ownership in full, or else you're just claiming it to be yours when it really isn't.
So long as the market exists, the demand will exist.
Good, then you agree that credentials are valid and that the skilled rise to the top, the unskilled fall to the bottom.

I was saying that information about products aren't readily available.

And besides, it's impossible to make a good consumer choice. There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.

The nutrition facts for foodstuff are readily available and ensured by certain agencies. You can read all about the patents for certain electronics, and the history of family traditions for long-lasting companies.
What about the new vegan/green craze.

READ|WATCH
BOOK|VIDEO

Literally the first chapters expose how this simplified and comforting idea of market values is ridiculous in the real world. (Amazing for a market with one consumer and one good, though.)

I don't care if you stay a capitalist, but jesus christ at least actually understand capitalism.

No market.

I don't know what makes you think that we care about if the law considers the workers own their work.

Nothing to do with this.

Threat to capitalism. You are either brain damaged or unable to read.

Nothing to do with this. I am not going to argue for every country that claimed socialism, but the disadvantaged countries have always had more revolutionary potential.

Unnecesary. Socialists shouldn't care about bourgeois laws for the protection of their property

Glad to see you don't really give a shit about sustainability.

Has nothing to do with topic. Pointless text.

No market=no supply/demand dictating the flow of goods/services.
Yeah, laws are still relevant even if you disagree with them.
Okay.
So the Third Reich was capitalist? Guess there were no taxes, no state, no seizure of assets, a truly free market. Prove it.
Okay.
Kind of it "necesary". You need to prove ownership before saying it's theft. Theft refers directly to ownership that is illegitimate. Do laws not exist either? No business, no markets, no laws: what a stable structure for a society.
The point is independent of my views. I am stating that if the markets exist, there will be demand, by nature of the niche available for, say, coal usage. Your distaste at the demand doesn't change its existence. Just feeling upset at something isn't a rationale that is useful at removing it.
Kind of does, we were discussing how some other, unrelated guy was talking about how physics professors are actually stupid and cheat their way to the top. I asked for proof, he disappeared. We talked about credentials and skill being used for higher pay grades. Re-read the thread.

READ|WATCH
BOOK|VIDEO
Not sure what you mean.
I guess that is why the stupid and infantile ideas that are so easily "debunked" and refuted by common-sense alternatives still prevail.
As if the imposed tag somehow hinders my points.

The revolution will have to break the law. Pointless text, nobody here cares.

If you ever read any leftist theory beyond memetier libertardian texts, you would know that we don't understand capitalism as muh invisible hand leading da market, but as a mode of production with private ownership of the means of production at its core.

Never claimed theft. There will be law, but of course different, since there is no private property. Again, these laws will have to be broken regardless of what you think is fair.

What is the point of typing this?

What is the point of typing this?

So ownership laws will have to be broken, but they have no place in your utopia. On what basis are labour vouchers or the goods purchased with the currency distributed if they cannot be owned?
None of that proves the Third Reich was capitalist with historical evidence. Didn't present any reasoning. That same 'private ownership' cannot be public, too. That's where the lack of a state comes into play.
You claim it is exploiting the worker, which means the worker owned it to begin with to have it illegitimately taken from him. Must first provide evidence showing ownership for it to be theft.
Demand exists outside of your opinion.
Providing context indicating the previous topic of discussion. You can scroll up and read it instead of saying "you are an autistic capitalist which means you are wrong, so stupid and infantile that I can easily provide a rationale as to why you are wrong, but I won't do that because you are already so dumb and wrong"

Vouchers are not currency. Personal property can be owned. Try again.

Means of production were privately owned for profit of the owners.

Never did. Try again.

What is the point of typing this? Do you think I care about this passive aggressive shitposting?

Providing context indicating the previous topic of discussion. You can scroll up and read it instead of saying "you are an autistic capitalist which means you are wrong, so stupid and infantile that I can easily provide a rationale as to why you are wrong, but I won't do that because you are already so dumb and wrong"

Never did. Pointless text.

Yes, they are. You just don't want to call it a currency, but it is "legal tender", it is a unit used to exchange goods/services backed by, in this case, labour. The Third Reich actually used labour-backed currency, too.
How is this bad and why should we destroy it.
I quote you directly: I don't know what makes you think that we care about if the law considers the workers own their work.
Workers don't own their own work because it is not their "own work" just because they say so. Need proof of ownership.
Demand exists outside of your opinion. You can think coal usage is "totally bigoted", but that will not change the fact that it is needed and will be sold.
See the image you attached before indicating "absolute proof of autism". Whining about capitalism as if calling me one will make my points "less valid". You can be 'x' and speak the truth regardless of what you are.

Your shitposting is becoming too obvious. Because socialism can not have private ownership. But that is not the point of this.

We don't care if the law considers it if they own. You are asking idiotic questions which we simply don't care for.

Why do you keep posting this like I give a shit about it and implying things about my opinion?

I never called you a capitalist, you must be hallucinating.

It is already understood that the goal is socialism. Why is this the goal and why should we support it over capitalism. What is the purpose for this decision. You keep repeating "well, they cannot co-exist" without actually providing a framework supporting your claims, just saying why they should be (i.e. because one cannot be with the other, not why we should replace the two). Water and oil cannot "co-exist" and merge, too. But that is not just reasoning to replace this glass of oil with water. A good argument would be "we need the oil for the fire we are going to start" or "we need the water to put out the fire that is started".
Disregarding the law is criminal. You are a criminal if you do not care about laws. Even your utopia will require ownership laws once you realize a one-generation society is not sustainable when nobody owns anything.
Because you said, and I quote: Glad to see you don't really give a shit about sustainability.
You are upset that I do not care about sustainability, when my original point is that demand exists outside of your feelings.
I quote you again: If you ever read any leftist theory beyond memetier libertardian texts, you would know that we don't understand capitalism as muh invisible hand leading da market, but as a mode of production with private ownership of the means of production at its core.

What makes you believe I am "with" the libertarian school of thought? Nice job glossing over your namecalling, the image you left is still up as if making me out to be autistic (requires proof, just as ownership does before you can call it theft as that infers directly to a legal framework) without proof is a point against my claims.

I gave you my reasons for being a socialist posts ago, but you are obviously unable to read or brain damaged.

Personal property is different from private proverty, but your autistic brain is incapable of seeing the difference even though several people including me explained it. So what if it's criminal?

And then what is the point of reposting this shit again then?

The very way you speak if proof of your autism. I do not bother having an actual discussion with you because you are not here in good faith. At all.

Your original post:
Does not present any reasoning for socialism over 'x'.
In what way. What differentiates the public from the private. I go and start my business, the property my shop is under is private property, just as my own abode is private property. Land ownership is private property and it is not related to what you do with it, it is only concerned with ownership, a concept that is lost with your ilk.
Have fun advertising the revolution to the masses when it involves criminal activity.
Your original post: Glad to see you don't really give a shit about sustainability.
You are bootyblasted that somebody feels differently and act passive-aggressively, so I point out that it is not merely my feelings, but basic common sense that dictates the demand will not revert back to nothing because you dislike its existence.
Where is the proof? Show me your diagnosis. You must have substantive evidence, describe autism and elaborate with your evidence.

They prevail in a system that is yielding increasingly poor results.

There's a wonderful part in one of Keen's videos where he shows a mathematical model of the factors in a capitalist economy in action - lovely stuff, the recessions are balanced by the booms and everything's great. Then he throws the financial sector onto the model, and by god is it a sight to see. Like pouring white spirit on a barbecue.

The end of the world doomsday people have been complaining about economic collapse since Nostradamus. You're going to have to do better than that.

And every so often, their name is Steve Keen, the year is 2006, and his prediction is actually falsifiable and comes with a justification.
Fortunately, just one year later, within the margin of error…

In a bit of amature Keen-seyanism, I'm going to make a promise to you: There will be another recession before 2020, likely another crisis as a result.

y

You already were porky.

Great, where's your proof.