Are we trying to destroy capital???

not to bad for reddit tbqh

We're trying to overthrow capital. As it is, the world is dictated by capital, even the actions of the bourgeoisie. This is called commodity fetishism. It takes the actions of people and attributes them to capital, as it is all done for its purpose.

This is, technically, still capitalism right?

What do you guys have against surplus value?

You realize that businesses have overhead costs like rent, and new equipment right? Not to mention a "rainy day" fund for when people aren't buying and you just have to cost until busy season.

You cant just take away everyone's incentives and expect men to want to do anything.

How many of you are even working hard towards a goal? Probably none of you.

This ideology is a death cult and you should get out while you can.

lmao we got a live one

Private capitalists don't deserve brownie points for investing to generate more capital. A far more efficient system would be for this overhead to be socialized, rather than being extorted by an individual profiteer.

Okay when you say "socialized," what you mean is "given to the government," right?

And then the government gives it "to the people," right?

Well you've just taken away "the private capitalist's" incentive to do anything in your country. He will leave, or resist your regime and be killed.

Once he is killed, some dipfuck know nothing will run his buisness into the ground because he also has no incetives, not any personal holding in maintaining a business he did not create.

His only incentive is not being shot by you. Do you not believe in basic behavioral psychology?

If it's more efficient, as in generates the same output from less input, why aren't there more coop factories and producers?
It's technically not that difficult to set up a company with equal ownership that does something like landscaping work or whatever. If it's actually cheaper to run then wouldn't there be more of them? you can even set one up yourself and undercut the competition.

I don't get what you guys mean by surplus value, isn't it just value?
If you buy some clay valued at $5 and turn it into $15 mug you just increased the value by $10.
Where does surplus and labor come in?

...

is this bait or are you here from Tumblr?

I'm honestly curious about the concept of worker exploitation. It does not make any sense to me.
It doesn't help you guys are mapping your own vocabulary on top of existing words.

What socialists desire is the full abolition of private property. We aren't taking a small business from a capitalist and giving it to another with a red pin.

We seize his productive forces and bend them toward a more equitable production, geared not toward profit but need fulfillment. In this context, the incentive is the social benefits provided to all persons involved in production. It doesn't matter if we lose some efficiency because there is no more profit and no more competition.

People start businesses because they want to make a profit, not provide a social good.

Co-ops form within communities, when friends and neighbors identify a problem of resource distribution and decide to solve it collectively, even if it does not enrich themselves.

Protip: If the government controls it, the workers do not.
Hoping for the latter

The concept of surplus value is relatively unrelated to what you describe. The idea is essentially along these lines (I may be misrepresenting it, don't quote me on this):
so "surplus value" is the difference

What is a union? Are union bosses workers? Is a union a government? Are managers a necessity? Is management considered working?

I'd like all of these questions answered in non smug shit posting format if possible. Green text is also fine.

Labor power is what turns a $5 packet of clay into a $15 mug.

Inherent to wage labor is the undercutting of wages. Even if your employees make $15 mugs, they don't earn this $15 directly. You do, and then you pay them a wage.

Wage labor is only profitable because the employee receives less money than his products are sold for. This way, the capitalist keeps some extra, to buy more clay and line his pockets. If you have ten employees rather than one, you make ten times the profit.

How did the clay become the mug? You shaped the clay, you fired it, you glazed it, you put it up for sale. All of those steps were you applying labour to the clay. Your labour was what turned the $5 lump of clay into a $15 mug. Your labour input was the source of the $10 extra value.

Surplus can be summed up in pic related. It's an exaggerated example (the rate of profit isn't that high), but the idea is clear enough.

It can't be helped, really. It happens in every academic text: they're trying to explore very complex topics, so it's incumbent upon them to make sure the terms they're using have very clear and specific definitions. They end up using terms in ways quite different than their normal definitions, but the choice is between that or filling your work with made-up nonsense words that you define in the course of the text.

Doesn't answer my question but doesn't require the entire to not want profit and cheat the system? Why would you want your country to adopt this when you know there will be people draining the system?

We want both. In fact a worker owned economy is needed to abolish capital.

...

Not exactly how I would say it works, but I don't see an issue with any of this.
The laborer can just decide not to sell his labor and do whatever he was doing before the "capitalist" came along. It might seem unfair but I wouldn't call it exploitive.

...

The core of what the people want is a fair shot at self ownership and agency outside of a system that has already massively outclassed the individual to the point that the barrier to entry is impossible for the average or even the supreme man.

The corporation is too big to compete with, so even bothering to attempt to try is financial suicide.

Their answer is that they want an enforced level playing field by way of government intervention.

All you'll do is just redistribute power into even fewer hands.

You guys are pawns in something bigger. You have to understand.

This is true! It is in fact exactly what happened at the dawn of the capitalist mode of production. Peasants by and large took one look at that system and said 'lol no fuck that' and went back to living self-sufficient lives on their small plots of land. That's why the English parliament passed the Enclosure Acts, to cut peasant access to land off entirely. This forced a whole bunch of landless peasants into the cities, where the only way they could survive was by selling their labour to the mines and the mills and the factories.

Sounds like you should make some infographics to BTFO this common as fuck argument tbh. It's a nice angle.

That sucks, but it's not capitalism if you're stealing land from other people, it's just plain extortion.
Also the exact opposite happened with China's industrial revolution with farmers moving to factories because sustenance farming can be a pretty shitty existence when food is dirt cheap.

No, you fundamentally do not understand Marxism/communism.

We do not want any corporations, whether worker-owned or privately owned. We want production to be owned by society, and set forth towards the goals of use, rather than profit. Please read/skim this article, as it gives a very good example of what I mean: jacobinmag.com/2017/03/food-production-hunger-waste-agriculture-commodity-capitalism/

No offense, but you're literally a classcuck. You're defending people who don't give a fuck about you.

Ok, genius. Tell me what I should do instead, and tell me why the people by and large don't do it.

Did you just click on Holla Forums after internalizing every state approved meme that's ever been produced, without reading even a few paragraphs of what communism entails?

t. Fredrick Engels
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf

Stop saying society when you mean "The government."

Who decides the rules society plays by? The government.

youtube.com/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs

I'm defending society as it stands and my right not to starve to death under your short sighted bullshit.

Your type keeps ignoring inconvenient chunks of my arguments.

If not you outright resort to ridicule.

Your shit doesn't work, it's never worked and I'll kill you before I starve to death you fuck.

It's my right to starve you to death though.

Say that screaming out of a helicopter.

...

Oh, so you came from /liberty/ then.

All of my arguments were prior to what he said, and none of them were addressed. Are IDs disabled on this board or something? What a shit board.

I come from the earth, and I enjoy crossposting in whatever board I please as a natural living man. Am I being detained?

Every system in the world requires people to not want to cheat the system. If you want people to pay attention to you and not just point and laugh, maybe give us the reason why you think "people would just drain the system" instead of going "it would just happen because it happens xD"

Throughout history, the government has been a tool of the rich and powerful thanks to capitalism and similar economic systems. Our goal is to force the government back into the hands of the people, and institute radical proletarian democracy.

Instead of what? I don't know what your situation is.
People in general try to make their labor as valuable as possible via education and networking and sell it to the highest bidder. Individually people are looking for the highest paying job they want to do and get the training for it, probably with a student loan, maybe a scholarship. Well, that's generally how it works.

What arguments? The poster gave you more or less the communist solution, then you started screaming like the angry child drowning in ideology you are.

If you can't be bothered to have a serious discussion, then you might find Holla Forums more to your liking.

Well no, I said society. But continue being a dumbass.

Read up on how a commune works.

And the millions starving right now? Fuck them, right? Pics highly related

Kek libertarians and ancaps will always masturbate to fascism. You retarded bootlicking fuck. Must suck to be so classcucked

I'm not going to restructure everything I already wrote in a pleasant format for you to ignore it and spew more ideology at me.

Oh wait, yeah I will.

What is a union? Are union bosses workers? Is a union a government? Are managers a necessity? Is management considered working?
I'd like all of these questions answered in non smug shit posting format if possible. Green text is also fine.

Please ignore this post again by all means. Answering my questions might make you think things that contradict your barely thought out highschool tier belief system.

the highest bidder who doesn't labor, and makes money by the virtue of owning things*

A parasitic class, if you will. Kinda like those "welfare leeches" you guys complain about :^)

To me you're describing a system where people work for altruistic reasons.

What if a problem occurs where everyone should pitch in, but 50% of the population just doesn't. In a capitalism if your job is to fix something and you don't you get fired, you're not contributing but you're not taking up resources.
What's the repercussion for not contributing to the coop?

What did he mean by this? Drop the PCP.

Workers uniting to achieve their own goals.

Their existence is not strictly necessary, whether they are is determined by if they work for wages. If they don't, and instead own businesses, they are capitalists.

Presently, you could say yes, but again, this depends on context. No, managers are not necessarily capitalists.

Yes.

Have you ever wondered why you hate capitalists but never mention banking?

Drop the baseless assertions that I am not of sound mind.

Elaborate.

What context are they workers and what context are they not workers?

what are these numbers from?

You addressed me as if I had ignored you. Anyway.

On what specifically? Someone who works for a wage, thus not receiving the full value of their labour, is a workers, though we use the term proletarian. On the contrary, if you own means of production, e.g.: factory, mines, farms or any other business employing proletarians who are paid in wages, you are a capitalist.

Read above. Some managers work in the business yet are also owners. These can be considered petit bourgeoisie. If they just do waged labour, they are proletarians.

If you think it'll make your money back you can buy the production equipment yourself with a loan or investment the same way you take a loan out for your education.

For smaller companies it's not rare to see the president pay key engineers and other staff more than himself it means running the company better. A lot of startups don't pay themselves at all if it can raise the chances of getting the company off the ground
For corporations the equipment doesn't even belong any one person, it belongs the potentially hundreds of thousands of shareholders, who vote on a board of directors, who then bid on CEO talent.

Guess the point I'm trying to make is, these "owners" are paid for their management skills the same way a programmer is paid for their computer skills. If a lot of talented leadership pops up the salary for the lot of them will go down same with any other profession.

How do you determine the value of labor?

Why do you want to eliminate ownership?

Is a person who owns a local small business "bourgeoisie"?

Do they not make wage labor?

I feel like your ideology is missing out on a lot of the small nuances of business and labor.

And why wont you address incentives? People need an incentive to do things.

Private ownership of things has always been an incentive in society and you want to take that away.

Why would I do anything if I couldn't own anything?

Yeah I wish Das Kapital was more than a paragraph long and had less typos.

If you cant explain your belief system without saying "LOL READABOOK CAPITALIST" you don't understand your own belief system.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

Of private property. Capitalism is unsustainable and one can already see it's effects of mass poverty, war, global warming. All in the name of profit, in a world with finite resources.

The size of the business is irrelevant, his role in the production is what matters. He is either bourgeois or petit bourgeois.

You can not extract surplus value from yourself.

Which are?

Your mistake is thinking of a communist society through capitalist glasses. So you make dumb arguments like this one, and the one about da gubbamint. Fuck off.

Shots fired..

As a worker, I'm not entitled to my fair share of it, also it's generally an inherently useless commodity made by a corporations profit and not a necessity like housing, medicine or food (these have hence become commodified)
What if the land and the tools were free to use by anyone who had some constructive use for it, like the books in a library?

What if my incentives come from a desire to help the collective good and not my own selfish ego? What if my incentives come from a desire for my own selfish ego and not my bosses, landlord and my governments military selfish ego? I think people have a natural inclination for productive work, and the reason for loafers has more to do with the systems they're channelled into & can't excel at.

Thanks for giving us the benefit of the doubt.

What is there to address? People work to survive in capitalism. In socialism work is remunerated with labour vouchers which stand for the labour done. In communism work is not even necessary.

Incentive to do what? Houses, cars and TVs? Those are personal property.

Read above.

We're talking in circles.

You owe it to yourself to watch these videos at least. They describe the place you will inevitably die in.

You have faith in the goodwill of the individual to do what is right while living in a society where they do not.

I have faith in the individual to act in their self interest while living in a society where that is all individuals do and the contrary is rare and celebrated.

Good luck building that dam so Moscow can have drinking water.

youtube.com/watch?v=0D8_Lcq2-cA

Why should there be any repercussions? Why oppress those who just DO NOT WANT to work?

Perhaps you're subconsciously relating work to involuntary act of servitude? That way other slaves may be pretty bummed why there are "welfare leeches"

And here we see in a classic exhibit, once he runs out of arguments, resorts again to shitposting and strawmanning. Well done, very intelligent.

Were at the lowest rate of global poverty ever
Most peaceful time in history
If you're going to determine value of something by how much effort it takes to make, I don't see how communism is any better at solving the intangible problem of pollution.

This is a somewhat broad statement. I think we would both agree that certain people need incentive to do certain things. There is a video on youtube called "septic five" in which a man is willingly chilling in a septic tank. For fun. Take care of basic necessities, get people to demonstrate their interests and proficiencies, and socially, whether through direct democratic vote, or through bottom to top, immediately recallable deligates, decide on the distribution of labour. Nearly everything would feasibly be taken care of.

The common mistake of confusing private and personal property. Private property, by the marxist definition, the only one we use in these parts, is that which is owned by one person (who presumably paid for it), but is worked on by another. This other produces a certain amount of value, equal to that of the commodity. A portion of that value generated is then given to the owner. Even after covering the expenses to maintain and replace the owner's property, still more value is transfered to said owner.

Private property is your toothbrush, your TV, and your real doll. You acquired it, you use it for your own purposes, you can keep it.

Capitalism always has been and always will be based on the violence that is property. A big part of the works of Proudhon and Marx and Kropotkin is refuting this liberal myth of the "hold your own, be left alone" capitalism. If you read "Debt: The First 5000 Years" (by David Graeber, anarchist) or "The Origin Of Family, Capital, And The State" (by Friedrich Engels, Marxist), you'll realize that the natural mode of organization among people is nonhierarchical, face-to-face democratic, communism.

There are even semi-modern examples such as 18th-century pirates:
workplacedemocracy.com/2009/09/09/the-invisible-hook-what-managers-can-learn-from-pirates/
Pirates organized in an anarcho-communist fashion without even knowing it because that's human nature in the absence of hierarchy and systematic violence. Capitalism can only exist with the systematized violence of the state defending property, private or "public". The only solution is to rid ourselves of both (as property can maintain itself and regrow the state in a worse way) and return to a lack of ownership, where the useful and spontaneously-generated rule of occupancy and usage goes hand-in-hand with large-scale production for human use.

nice video

yes lets abolish the wage system

Nah dude, I'm hungry. Cant make good arguments when you internet communists starving you to death.

Watch the gulag video bro, it's where you're gonna end up when you realize shit is fucked and you don't like starving to death but it's too late.

You need at least SOME people to work. Does the system just hope and pray that enough people work to maintain a comfortable way of life?

You cant aquire those things without capital, which you want to abolish.

That certainly isn't how capitalism operates once it's established. It is, however, how capitalism becomes established from the starting point of the feudal mode of production. Once it is established it can extort surplus value from the working class by forcing them to choose between exploitation and poverty, because all the alternatives have been removed. After the capitalist mode of production became globally dominant, other methods of forcing people away from self-sufficiency and into wage labour opened up. The Chinese example is one: flooding the market with cheap food to drive small landholders out of business and into the factories serves essentially the same process as enclosure did in the 18th century, while avoiding overt disrespect for the property rights that are enshrined in capitalist law (once they'd stolen everything of value, they introduced laws against stealing).

I dream about that too. thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2017/04/05/bill-gates-and-4bn-in-poverty/

Honestly can't decide between delusional or troll. The US keeps funding wars in the Middle East against it's opponents, dickwaving against countries and funding unrest in others, but you call this peaceful This also includes your beloved daddy Pinochet. Wew lad.

What? Let's start by the fact that we don't need to pollute the environment with as much unnecessary production for pure profit, producing far more than needed at the cost of the environment.

Esto no es un argumento.

And how do you define capital?

The same way you do. We cant argue using different language.

There is no hope involved. Internet communities create content without any commercial profit. We're already operating outside bounds of liberal economy. Think of labor not as a mechanical repetition but as of constant creative process. Repetition should be left for the machines and fucking OC thieves.

china.org.cn/china/features/content_16955209.htm

Bankers also suck, what's your point?

The numbers aren't sourced by the imagemaker (as far as I know), but you can look them up for yourself.
The specific total isn't as important as the fact capitalism facilitated all this.

Remind me again how many small businesses make it? And how many people have access to enough capital to have one?

I'm well aware. Shareholders are bourgeoisie.

Lol I like how by your own logic, all the people starving now under capitalism, are justified in pushing the CEO's out of helicopters.

Yes.

libcom.org/library/capitalism-communism-gilles-dauve

>I dream about that too. thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2017/04/05/bill-gates-and-4bn-in-poverty/
Believing in a wordpress page against every other source online. That is some anti-vax level shit.

US crime is at it's lowest too, but you'd never hear about it because peace isn't news worthy.

I can buy that a communism would pollute less as a side effect of making less stuff overall, but it's not going to care more.

Here you go, for retards who attack source rather than content. aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html

What the fuck is anyone supposed to care about this if we're talking on a global scale?

On what basis do you say this?

Your statements don't mean anything, because you're just comparing a capitalist time period to another one. Statements like "most peaceful time in history" mean nothing whether true or not, because it's already acknowledged that capitalism is better than the prior feudalism.

Your post doesn't address the fact that the profit-motive is behind worker exploitation in both the less obvious (plain old wage labour) and the very explicit (brown people losing their lives from factories falling apart, and the bosses not giving a shit), war, and climate change (see: oil companies).

about 10% the last time I checked? but entrepreneurs aren't personally liable for the debt and it goes up to something around 50% on the 2nd or 3rd try.
Loans and investors, just said that in the same post. If you can convince people you can run a company better than the next guy then you'll get all the money you'll need.

As petty producers and peasants are absorbed into the industrial proletariat they are often "lifted out of poverty" by becoming wage earners, but with no increase in their nutritional security or standard of living.
The world bank has twice moved the goal posts to give the illusion of progress, and an "international" poverty line is about as vulgar of a statistical concept as one could imagine.
aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html

Please lose that flag until you actually understand what it stands for (marxists don't use capital in the manner that you're using it).

Capital in the marxist sense doesn't simply mean the machines, material and labour used in production (though in the context of a market economy they take the form of capital), but rather the value accumulation cycle. In other words buying things on the market in order to produce another commodity and then sell it for a profit (M-C…P…C'-M'). Outside of an economy based on generalised market exchange, value and capital in the marxist sense of the terms do not exist, even if a physical surplus of goods is being produced.

Well it was in direct response this statement

I still don't know what this means. It's not the 1800s anymore.

As far as I know, no one is forcing them to work in those shitty factories.

Money can be used to purchase goods and services.

Source is relevant when your talking about statistics. I'll read it later

Because no one is going to tell you explicitly that we're at the most peaceful time in history and war makes a great news piece to play over and over. But before the cluster fuck of WW2 countries were at war constantly. now we have these jaded proxy wars where relatively very few people die.

Think the burden of proof is on you to say a change of economic systems will turn everybody into tree huggers.

A workers council or union doesn't need a boss, in the sense of someone able to make decisions regarding the workers without the approval of the workers. If in some cases leadership is required, like on an airport, people can be put into those positions while having the workers be able to retract this position as soon as they choose to gather and vote for it. Also a spokeperson isn't a boss.

Relative to what? Millions of people die every year, primarily thanks to capitalism. See

Never said this. I advocate for the usage of labour vouchers, but you insist on beating this epic strawman. Almost nobody here holds the same positions.

Is it that hard to believe that billions of people voluntarily moving from subsistence farming to factory work improved their quality of life?

You don't need to address several people. And it did. What is your point?

I work, my boss doesn't, yet somehow my boss earns money. If I got a wage equal to the work i put in, in terms of value it produces, the buisniess owner wouldn't earn anytjing from hireing me, and I wouldn't be hired.
And no, Elon Musk doesn't work 100000 times as hard as hes employes, and neither does the money fall from the sky. Almost all his money he has gotten by selling the product of the workers labour while compansating them with less than they produce.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

Someone back there said something to the degree of capitalism making poverty worse. and I need to go to sleep soon so I'm getting lazy with the replies.

It's not the fucking 1800s anymore

It'll be the 1800s until it's global 1917

Poverty is increasing, even if we are not at the same technological level. Poverty is defined in the present. Ancient tribesmen were not necessarily poor if they had access to their necessities.

Bankers are a type of capitalist. What's important to understand is that the three types of capitalists (merchant, money lender, and industrial) are always trying to fuck each other over. The bankers tend to wield the ultimate power but that doesn't make the merchants and industrial capitalists any less evil.

The extraction of surplus value from the worker to make a profit. Basically, the image in

If they want to fucking eat, they have to. You think people work there voluntarily with no coercion?

Oil companies (along with all companies) will cease to exist, and there will no longer be a profit-motive. A mode of production oriented towards use value would no longer rely on that form of energy.

Yes, fellow prole, make sure to get to sleep quickly! You have a long day of being cucked in the workplace, and you need to have all your energy for it. :^)

The reforms refered to has not been reverted

Then isn't it good that the absolute minimum people is going up? Even if the gap between the rich and poor is increasing I don't think you can complain about our standards for the poor going up.

It is irrelevant whether advanced technology exists if you are poor as shit and have terrible work and food conditions.

Read the goddamn article.

I am almost positive your boss does work.
You're also getting paid more from your boss than what you can make on your own so you're both benefiting.

If you want to see your money work for you in the same way invest in your 401k. If you're feeling lucky you can get up to $20 for every $100 put in off the backs of whatever company is paying the highest dividends.

Smartphones are neat but you can't eat them.

Well all that unskilled labor is useless in our economy and impossible to care for by our standards. At least our over zealous consumption gives them menials tasks to do in exchange for a better quality of life than what they can make for themselves.

Read the fucking article. What you're going on about has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Poverty IS increasing you absolute autist.

...

He certainly doesn't generate all the value he keeps at the end of the day. (Again, see the image in ) Why do you think he hires the workers? He needs them, but they don't need him. They can certainly work without him cucking them.

THAT PROVES MY FUCKING POINT
That's exactly why people sell their labor. You just disproved your own dumb posts about "hurr durr just get loans it'll work out if you work hard society is meritocratic or something lol". The point is we don't want wage labor, or exchange value at all.

Replace boss with owner, the fucking stockholders have never even been at the company. And also, yes capitalism is better than no work, but the stockholders are compleatly unnecessary, as they don't produce anything. Traditionaly the owner had to do some managing, but now he just hires managers to do that.

They can go back to farming, which is all they had before outside interests came in. At least now they have an option that pays more than what they can grow.
The workers also get the value of a consistent pay check that doesn't go away when there's a drought. As long as the trade is voluntary the workers are going to choose the best option for themselves.

nah, I'm self employed, I just don't want to break my rhythm.

The idea is that the two sides need each other, just not the individual people.
Go for it, start the same company but with one less person to pay.

nope, don't get it, what do you want to work for? If you're okay with having less stuff then you can feasibly gather some like minded people and start your own town.

If you have retirement plan, then you are the stockholders.

Not here in Norway. Also, I obviously meant those who live their life eaning money off stocks, stop being so dense.

Also this does not change the fact thq
At stockholders do not produce value.

oh yeah, they're useless
you're government invests in stocks for you then.

You're honestly total garbage, with a deeply embedded chauvinist mindset. Something being better than something else, doesn't mean it's fucking okay.

This assumes job security, which obviously isn't a thing. From The Principles of Communism:

None of it's voluntary

No, there is no need for a property-owning parasitic class.

youtube.com/watch?v=yAxajtiRatg

Lol you're so fucking stupid and naive

Yes, they literally are. They don't labor.

Tbh, it seems obvious that he hasn't given any of this serious thought, and is just responding to arguments with whatever implausible stuff he thinks of first, because he's terrified of radical change

It's not like poverty in another country is something communism is going to solve. I don't see what the other options are other than mass altruism

more secure than what they were doing before or they wouldn't do it

Being born in a poor country isn't voluntary. If you think sweat shops should pull out you're just taking away options.

99percentinvisible.org/episode/rajneeshpuram/
99percentinvisible.org/episode/soul-city/
Seriously, it's been done before, a number of times. mostly by cults though.

>99percentinvisible.org/episode/rajneeshpuram/
>99percentinvisible.org/episode/soul-city/
Pretty sure I read about another one of these that was much more scrappy/low budget.
Can't find it right now and I'm out for the night.

A mode of production oriented towards fulfilling needs rather than profit, will alleviate poverty.

Pretty sure you have a brain parasite. I already said capitalism is better than feudalism.

Well, of course. There's been a number of examples of attempts at socialism: youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

I called you stupid, because almost all of these were not allowed to survive as the state's forces slaughtered them.

Overhead costs are considered when analysing surplus value. Do you think capitalists become billionaires by running no profit margin?
Also read this: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/