How do we union pill walmart workers?

How do we union pill walmart workers?

Other urls found in this thread: Testimony 02-13-13.pdf of people in poverty in the past 12 months by state and puerto rico: 2009és_communistes_pour_l'autogestion

Show them the zeitgeist film, just the part where they do an analysis on capitalism, it's like Capital for normies. I've used it to radicalize other people and it always works.

It wont work, its not that walmart workers don't want to unionize, its that they can't. One time a walmart tried to unionize and the owners shut it down. They would literally rather shut down an entire store than let it be unionized.

What if you create union across all shops. They can't shutdown the whole chain.

Do you have a YT link to just the capitalism part of Zeitgeist film?

burgerland walmart shows off anti-union videos to all new hires

it would be extremely difficult. if Walmart ever catches wind of it during the formation process it's game over.

There would have to be intricate online communication between all parties involved. Maybe start a anonymous board just for Walmart employees?


Why would you, if you brainwash them, then the walmart employers will hire the next guy who doesn't make such a fuss. You'll just make them unemployable.

Ask them where they see themselves in 10 years

Unions will do literally nothing in the current year.
Why do you think porky is so eager to import people form the third world? It's not to help them out.
It's for infinite scabs if any of the natives try to rock the boat, not to mention they can pay them pennies and get away with it.

That’s how most unions start, yes.

Immigration isn’t that high in the US, despite what you may have heard. You might have a point if we were talking Europe

I don't understand why you want to compromise with the capitalists, it is either full revolution or you will just continue the destructive nature of the capitalist system.

What gains? If they form some mega-union, the employers won't have to do shit, they would just go to the third world or automate everything. Then you'd just have a bunch of workers sitting and waiting for nothing.

Did everyone forget the unionize Walmart movement like two years back. There was huge support and strikes. And a good bit of people were arrested too

And guess what fuckers, it's coming
Pic related was from a black Friday protest on the 7th. Walmart Santa getting arrested

No offense, but this op is extremely ignorant. It's like you're sitting and asking how do we unionpill Walmart workers and not realizing there is already a movement to do just that. Get off your high horse

this wouldn't be a problem with no free trade and a moderate immigration policy.

this too

Most people, especially people who work at Walmart, aren't autistic enough to get worked up over analysis. Give them worker propaganda.

I worked at that shithole for 10 years. They've already taken the pill. The problem is everyone working there is so poor they are also on social security and food stamps. They don't have the luxury to start a union. Most people working at wal-mart are the types who are wondering how they are gonna get the bills paid this month. They're constantly stuck on the first couple steps of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Aren't like most people that work in Walmart illegals?

You're framing this as if they were arrested for wanting a union and not arrested for disturbing the peace or protesting without a city's approval. There are other reasons, I just named two, but there is not a law that states such a thing is illegal (to protest calling for the existence of a union), to my knowledge. Now, the contract that they signed for their employment might disallow this, which (worst case scenario) would end with their termination, not arrest.

You can't cut out the 'free trade', even if you make it 'illegal', the companies would still escape or find a way to get their shit out of the nation. That's what always happens when you start to go crazy with regulations.


Good luck
I don’t think capitalist are willing to pull the trigger on that as quickly as you think. If a chain as big as Walmart automated everything, it could have a ripple effect

They'll bring it to them, then. It's entirely plausible to claim that they would move overseas to save their asses. Either that, or they stay and lose out to somebody who can fill the void they left because they can't compete for shit.
Sure, it would, but if it benefits them, it's getting done, no matter what.
It would be suicidal to support unions for workers of Walmart, though. Even if they become unionized, their employment contracts, if it states that they cannot do that, will just trigger and they'll be fired. There will always be another guy to fill the spot of somebody unwilling.

Why? Wouldn't that increase their profitt?

When I was hired around 2006, it wasn't a video they showed me. I had a computer test where they asked us all sorts of questions about what we would do in certain situations. If we heard anyone talking about unions the correct answer was to alert the management staff immediately.

Start-up costs are too high and we are in a low-credit economy. Besides, physical retail is dying a slow and painful death.

That goes for most countries

Walmart will straight-up close a location (temporarily or permanently) when there's a strike or attempts to unionize.

In addition to that there's the half-hour anti-union propaganda video THEY FORCE YOU TO WATCH when you go through hiring, (Comrade Jimmy 'arm the poor' Dore did a video about the new version of this anti-union propaganda btw, it's good shit ).

There's also two other things you need to keep in mind. For one, if you're working at Walmart, you're already desperate for work, underpaid, and have no health benefits - this keeps people from stirring up shit because their life is already precarious. Secondly, Walmart's policies are engineered in such a way that pretty much lets them fire anyone at anytime for essentially any reason (though they'll probably bullshit you and bring up the 3 times you clocked in/out 6min early or late or whatever).

So no, I doubt Walmart workers can successfully unionize. Which is unfortunate - there's a group (I think its called Our Walmart) that a friend of mine is involved with that is basically trying to unionize them with, like, essentially no success. Walmart would probably rather go out of business than bend to worker demands.

The only real solution is to liquidate the Walton family.

Why would you?

Basically means that your tiny walmart paycheck == your ability to get the drugs/surgery/checkups for your kids that you need in order to be somewhat healthy. If you're not from 🍔burger🍔-town that might be a new or novel concept.

Good thing most walmarts have pharmacies in them. That's premium 🍔burger🍔land healthcare for the poor right there.

I don't have kids, though. Most of the most recent adult generation don't have kids.
Why would you have kids if you have to take them for a check up every time you get a paycheck?


It is really hard to because Walmart monitors all its employees for union activities. Fun fact: Walmart only started having cameras in the parking lots of their stores when it wanted to crack down on union activity. Walmart doesn't seem to care that its parking lots are dangerous places where people brawl, get kidnapped or worse.

This is the kind of shit I like to see. Education.

You are speaking as if I am dumping a significant amount of my paycheck into checkups for some hypothetical disabled kid that needs constant medical attention. It's a lame point.

im really glad Holla Forums has background of real go getters

This is a real problem with modern size corporations isn't it. The actual damage one "unit" of workers can do becomes proportionally smaller as corporations consolidate and grow. So unless you have a union organized across the entire corporation, you'll never have any leverage.

To successfully organize a union in wall mart, you need underground cells in a plurality of the stores ready to strike before you can even come out in the open.

Tbf the British "walmart" is merely them buying up an existing and pretty profitable chain.

Weren't McDonald's employees able to accomplish this?

I think we can get Holla Forums types to agree with us on the matter of unions. Cooperations are, acording to Holla Forums, pushing for globalism, importing cheap labour(non-whites) and creating a degenerate consumer cuture. If we sell it to them in a manner that unions will fuck up the bottom line of a cooperation many of them might become a littler more red.

The point is more in relation to the average walmart worker.

I don't know your story, but I worked for walmart for around 6 years, starting right after I turned 16. I've worked at three different locations, in around six different departments, old-school stores and super-centers, moving for college and transferring between stores. If you've never worked for the company or don't personally know people who work at walmart you probably wouldn't understand the situation that a lot of those folks are in.

Additionally, I don't think its a lame point to indicate that a low-wage anti-union megacorp not providing healthcare to the vast majority of its 1.4 million employees that it has working in the US is a bad thing. The people who work there don't have many or any other options depending on the store location, which means that if they, for example, have a condition that requires medication (or have a child which requires medication), that cost is coming out of their pocket.

Additionally to that, I personally knew many people at walmart that were on EBT, I'm sure many of them benefited from SNAP as well. That means that US tax payers are subsidizing walmart's low wages - which works double for walmart because not only do they get to pay people poverty wages but I know for a fact that a lot of people who work at walmart do most of their shopping there (which also goes for pharmaceuticals).

It's a rigged system and walmart is making a killing off of it by exploiting the poor and keeping them poor.

It’s been going on for a couple years now and even britain is starting to organize

Source on the average walmart worker having children?
Why should they? It doesn't make sense, how is walmart's business model for employment related to your, say, dental health issues or your bowel problems. Who cares, it's like asking me to pay for your bowel problems. I don't even know you.
Then a sub ~35k job like Walmart is great because they can stay on the edge of the welfare cliff. If they get a better job, they are taken off of parts of their welfare support that they might otherwise get. It's smart, really.
Then stop doing that.
How? Exploiting the workers by paying them? If the workers were forced to work because they are property of walmart, then you'd have an argument. But that's not the case.
How are they keeping them poor? I don't think walmart is telling them to shop with them, you could go and spend your paycheck at their competitor.


They don’t pay them for surplus labor, no

Do we really need to explain to you how wages work or are you purposely being dumb?

nothing is "inevitable" unless you have a shitty neolib government that doesn't have the balls to make them eat dirt. Start locking up executives at random and I bet you'll find them way more compliant.

Defending porky for exploiting their impoverished workforce is kinda' gross, but there is the basis of a valid point in here. The reality is that the American government has been categorically unable and/or unwilling to help these people live in a way that isn't paycheck-to-paycheck, people rationing medication, people unable to afford healthy food (which makes them fatter and sicker), and essentially guaranteeing that they stay poor by not providing them a way to argue/fight for wages which are insufficient to rent a studio apartment. My point is that walmart essentially does the same thing and is allowed to make stupid amounts of money off of it, and that this is bad for everyone who isn't a walmart executive and share-holder, essentially.

Well for one, it's more like a sub ~20k job. You'll never get more than 32 hours a week (because if you do they have to offer you some kind of healthcare, and they do not want to offer you healthcare). But for two, isn't this Walmart abusing flagrantly abusing the welfare system? Isn't this the exact point I made about keeping poor and sick people poor and sick?

Well I mean there's the obvious factor that your labor is worth far more to them than what they're willing to pay you for, but to expand on that, you kind of already indicated it yourself. Walmart won't allow you to unionize, it won't allow you to work for enough hours to receive healthcare through them -walmart gets way better prices on healthcare items than any individual could, so this system keeps poor individuals paying more for any kind of healthcare - healthcare which a walmart worker will almost certainly be going through the walmart pharmacy for, and additionally, you forget that when walmart comes to town that other businesses can't compete with a monolithic megacorp which routinely acts in ways deliberately meant to put its competition out of business. You aren't 'forced' to work for walmart, you just can't work anywhere else anymore. You aren't 'forced' to pay rent or a mortgage, you're just made homeless if you don't. Walmart may not own you personally but they certainly own a large share of power within your local chamber of commerce and probably your city council. Again, that's bad for everyone but the handful of people that reap a massive financial benefit.

I guess to frame that a little differently - imagine that the only job you could get for 100 miles was with walmart in one form or another. They still don't own you, but unless you move they effectively have control of your employment opportunities/wage, and in capitalist systems that is your means of survival. That's bad for the workers and it's great for walmart.

To put a different spin on that, if I locked you in my basement, I don't 'own' you - but you're not going to eat unless you do what I say. That's obviously somewhat of a joke, though it doesn't mean that that isn't approaching the kind of control that walmart has on untold scores of the American populace. Which. Is. Bad.

thats the video

Part of the problem is financing. The union would have to get its money from somewhere and retail employees don't make enough to support both union dues alongside food, rent, and utilities.

Supporting unionization and worker action in countries that jobs are outsourced would be a far more effective at protecting domestic workers' jobs than any nationalist protectionism could.

I feel like the internet could also help organized simultaneous strikes world-wide.
Shame that hasn’t happen yet

Most US unions are shit now, even the best ones, usualy in the secondary and primary sectors, are run by fatcats and are completely docile.
The only way out for walmart employees and the service workers in general is to reinvent unions.
If there is anything people on this board should be doing is salting walmarts. If you don't know what salting is it just prooves how bad the situation in this board is.

I don't know if you ever worked for a walmart before but the chuds their are so far gone and impervious to rational or intelligent thought it would be literally impossible. Like 98% of walmart employees are exactly what gulags are for.

Do what normal unions do: slam their heads in car doors.

It kinda saddens to see all the fat, old broken people, lining up to those pharmacies.

Then they will have to pull shiesty shit regarding immigration/trade policies.


I dont know if this is the same for walmart but I have a friend who works at Wegmans and they literally train their employees to reject union literature "when offered".

This basically means that, if available, we must get adspace in/around walmart and pump it full of union literature and worker propaganda.

What a disappointment Khrushchev was.

fucking this. people think that offending the bourgeoisie in the slightest would turn the nation upside down like Venezuela, when in reality that should have happened to countries like Russia a long time ago.

How? Exploiting the workers by paying them? If the workers were forced to work because they are property of walmart, then you'd have an argument. Exploitation of the impoverished by paying them is an oxymoron.
What has the American government done in this regard? How is it 'their fault'? How have they removed 'a way to argue', I am pretty sure you can still protest. They can't force the business to pay you a higher wage, you are still free to protest for it though, but the business won't do it.
No, it isn't. For general info/points, Looking in Pennsylvania is pic related. It's closer to 30k than it is 20k.
Why do they have to pay for the healthcare? That just raises the same questions I asked again: it's like me having to pay for your dental issues. I don't even know you.
I don't think walmart keeps your pay at one point forever, people can still earn more over time, like promotions and shit. Or you can gain enough work experience and move to another company. Point being, this isn't walmart using the welfare trap, it's the worker who chooses to stay at sub 30k. Around 30k a year isn't that much, there are jobs you can find after some experience that pay you more than that, or you can get into trades and stuff. But then you would be earning less because of the absence of welfare, hence the cliff.
No, it isn't obvious. If I'm a cashier, how is it worth much, much more? That doesn't make sense. The promotions or minimum wages aren't arbitrary, it's what the job entails. It's not like a busboy or something is actually worth 20 an hour if he's working as a busboy at a restaurant that pays 10 an hour.
Technically, they do, they just fire you. You can still form a union but you'll be unemployed. That's why I said it's suicidal because another guy just comes to replace you.
lol are you trying to sell me walmart, I don't go there man.
If they have prices as good as you say, then no shit. Would you rather pay 20 for some item or 10?
Then how can it be exploitation? The first definition relies on some unjust relationship, but there's a quid pro quo relationship, not a one-sided one. I pay some guy to live in his space, and he lets me live in his space. He wants my money and I want his space, so we trade. I don't want to own a space, so it's good for me to rent it. I think what you mean to say is that I'm dependent on him, because he can always find another guy to rent it to. But that doesn't mean it's exploitation.
100 miles is a huge distance, I don't actually think such a place exists so frequently to be used in an example. Maybe in empty places. But still, the goal would be to get enough money to move. You're just describing the shift from rural to urban living that happened as jobs went to the city. That happens to everyone.
Very bad example. Can I ask you to leave? If I am locked AND it is against my will, then you are enslaving me to be some animal until I do as you say so I can eat. Walmart isn't locking you in their store and forcing you to do as they say so that you can eat, there are many other ways of getting food and walmart isn't forcing anything onto you. If that were true, then there would be walmart camps of slavery the minute you went to wherever it is you live, but I do not think that is plausible in the English speaking first world: it's a voluntary association.

That doesn't make sense. What surplus labour? So the worker's time is valued at x+whatever the surplus is deemed to be? The only thing that determines the value of the time is the consumer of the good/service. If I'm a cashier, I don't deserve 20 an hour just because I said so, if it doesn't reflect the job performance, then you don't just get random promotions. If you sign an employment contract, it doesn't allow you to self-promote, it isn't your business to begin with. You can try it with your own business, start some shop up on the corner store and promote yourself arbitrarily. It won't work.

No, the question was why they have to pay you for your bowel issues or dental issues any more than I have to pay a percentage of it.

Don't think they will wait for that.

Also, this kind of begs the question as to what the necessary amount of labour is. It's impossible to gain what the necessary amount of labour for subsistence is because people all live different lives, eat different things, go to different places, etc. The surplus work that they have to do assumes we have a standard for the necessary work: not only is this difficult to pinpoint to each person's life, it often boils down to the bare minimum, which people don't always abide by (sometimes you go drinking and spend more than you should have). Not to mention, this standard would differ based on the area you live in.

you know what they say: peaceful revolution is impossible, therefore…


Wallmart is too big too old and very union savy, workers should start unionizing in smaller companies that don't expect them, to increase overall union popularity.

stop posting any time.

Why's that? Do you have an actual response, or do you just want to voice your irrational disagreement. Do you disagree with me on the welfare cliff? Why are the citations in the link wrong, or the image?

just wait for walmart to automatize, how are their workers even real lmao

I'm a member of the IWW and I don't know what salting is. Can you explain it? I'm guessing it's something to the effect of pamphleting but I'm hoping it's better than that if it's got a special name.

exactly this.

salting is when a one or more workers get employed with the intention of spreading ideology and convincing other workers to unionize or create a union. it was one of the main tactics used by unions during their glory days.
It is quite dangerous tho and needs to be well done bacause you risk getting marked as a union agitator and no one will hire you.

Who's this pork ass motherfucker?

A gish gallop is used during a live debate that is timed, or has some time limit. This is the Internet, there is no time limit. The topics I responded to were all things that were brought up: the welfare cliff, the American government disallowing certain rights (I disputed this), why walmart should pay for healthcare any more than I should, the concept of promotions and economic mobility, why promotions aren't arbitrary, my opinion on why unionization is dumb for workers who want to have their jobs, how the definition of exploitation is required for it to be used in the context it was, and my dispute of a bad example about being locked in a basement.
I didn't make the example, he did. I was responding to it.

Nuking America creates instability that those currently in power can use to further cement the stranglehold they have on the nation.


You don't seem to be aware of the concept of surplus value. It's simple the work done by an employee is worth more than what he gets paid. Thats how the system works thats how most companies make money.
As it was already stated most walmart workers (and workers in general) are in no condition to leave their job. To add to that only %5 of US workers are self employed and around 80% of small buisnesses fail in 10 years. So yeah in capitalism most people will have to live with the fact that their work is being stolen (yes it is theft if they don't have other choices).
You were the one to bring up this wellfare gap and you seem to be all fired up about it, Tbh we are not talking about it cuz we don't give a shit really. We are not social democrats who want ultra welfare for everyone, as far as i care if wallmart employees are exploting the system good for them they deserve it. But still, no it's not the workers who choose to earn jackshit at wallmart, wallmart only offers shitty jobs and almost no one gets promoted there.
We don't think wallmart has a moral obligation to pay healthcare to their workers it's just that many companies do, and it would be wise for walmart workers to pressure their bosses to get it.

No, text gish gallops like yours are real, no one wants to disect your text wall of bullshit, especially when you don't undersatand some of the things we are talking about.

Yes, that's fallacious. You are appealing to laziness to get out. Not my problem you aren't patient. If you don't want me responding to points, don't make assertions like "wage cliff is sub 20k" when I have empirical evidence to show otherwise.

Unions are gay lmao

With what reference point? Do you know what the standard of living is where this hypothetical worker lives? If they get 45k in a place that costs 30k to live with utilities, average rent, and other stuff taken into account, then they are paid more than they ought to be compared to the necessary cost of living. The 15k is the surplus they are paid. So you're saying workers shouldn't be paid that extra amount?
Also, there is no way to determine if the worker is being underpaid by the judgment of the worker: it has to do with the productivity and the worth of the labour in the market. Just arbitrarily boosting the cashier's salary up 20k a year makes no sense.
Speak for yourself. If you're more marketable in, say, trades, you can expect to earn more than the previous generation did. That's the point: earn more and leave some for your kids. Kids from families that work smart to plan for the future earn more and more over time, they move up the economic ladder.
Citation? I found a different stat:
If they can't succeed, then they fail. What's the issue?
Only because it was claimed that the cliff is sub 20k, when it isn't.
So why work for walmart. Go to their competitor. Also, source on the absence of promotions?

WIDF out

someone permaban this gishlord pl0x

I am asking for citations for your claims and presenting my own. Have you ever even had a discussion using citations or is this all new to you?


I agree, he never even made an argument. It was just irrationally dismissing sources because of emotions or whatever, not on the merit of the points raised within the citations.

Your reading comprehension is pretty bad here… No one was claiming that the welfare cliff was 20k or whatever. No one even brought up welfare cliff until you started going off about it. The claim was that a part-time walmart worker (which is everyone at the store that isn't a manager) has less than 20k take-home from working at Walmart.

Your claim was that people working at walmart were making around 35k a year. I corrected you by saying that their wages were much closer to 20k a year.

Your claim was that being under 35k was beneficial to them because it allowed them to take out benefits. This is where I think your understanding of this system shows a lack of nuance and experience.

Let me tell you something about working part time at walmart and trying to get benefits. If you don't have a child and are single (unlike the single-mom in Gary Alexander's analysis), the most you will be able to get is less than $200 a month for food through the EBT program. That's it. I know, because when I worked for walmart while I was still in college I certainly couldn't afford rent (on a one-bedroom apartment that I was sharing with a roommate) food, base tuition payments (and books) and transportation money, so I applied for any and all benefits I could get. Do you know how much I got? Fucking nothing. I'm not kidding. My $12.25/hr walmart wage had me making too much money to be eligible for any assistance.
My roommate on the other hand wasn't working at the time. She got ~$120 a month of EBT food-credits. We ended up seeking out food charities so we could keep eating. (I remember getting ~10lbs of frozen french fries from one of these charities. We ate like queens of cardiac arrest that month - but that's another story).

Have you ever applied for benefits? Ever sat down with a government employee and tried to figure out what you are actually eligible for? Ever take one of your three allowed days off from work to do it because the office closes after 5pm and isn't open on weekends? It's a lot more cumbersome than the graph you posted makes it out to be. Maybe Pennsylvania has better benefits programs than my state did (plus this was 10+ years ago that I left walmart, so things may have changed somewhat in that regard, but I kinda' doubt it).

I think there is also an interesting conclusion, or at least a few prescient questions to draw from Gary Alexander's testimony before the senate budget committee - which is where that welfare-trap graph you posted came from.

For anyone else interested, here's the testimony- Testimony 02-13-13.pdf

His conclusion was that these programs need to be entirely redesigned.

However, one might ask, from where will these 'chances of realizing a true opportunity to obtain self-sufficiency and independence' come from? If not from megacorps like walmart, if not from the free market, then where?

I previously stated that you have the essence of a true point when you indicate that walmart providing healthcare to its workers isn't really their 'job'. I don't disagree with that - walmart is in it to make sick bank, not care for its workers. We get it - it's capitalism at work. However, what I (and I think others on this board) find so egregious is that there is no real mechanism in place that seeks to provide 'a true opportunity to obtain self-sufficiency and independence'. I don't think that can come from a corporation - at least not for the millions of people that walmart employs - and aside from that, walmart has an incentive to keep these people somewhat desperate, does it not? Most people wouldn't work there if they had other/better opportunities, but they don't, so they stay. My question to you is, where are those opportunities going to come from? If that really is the solution to this welfare-cliff problem, as Gary Alexander indicates, then where the hell are those opportunities to make something of yourself going to come from? College is unaffordable, joining the military is about the only 'jobs program' the US has (and look how that's going - how many soldiers do you think killed themselves in the time it took me to type this up?), starting a business, as others have indicated, is more than likely going to fail, so what option is there?

Pointing out that there is a 'welfare-trap' (for some people, not others, depending on state, some restrictions may apply, void where prohibited) is kind of a moot point if you can't offer an alternative solution - which, if we're being speculative, is something that capitalist institutions and governments seem ill-equipped to offer. I don't think we disagree in the conclusion that these programs should be redesigned in various way, streamlined and such to prevent unnecessary bureaucracy and overlap, but without something else to actually DO to be self sufficient those systems will undoubtedly be similarly relied on by millions of people. I don't believe that cutting them loose to be essentially indentured workers for a company that will never pay them enough to do anything but just survive will be beneficial to them, or society.

What is your solution?

holy fuck user how can you be so fucking retarded.
It's not a mater of being underpaid its how the system works. If one hour old henry's work gives the company he works for 3k dollars, he cannot be paid 3k dollars an hour or else the company won't make money. He will probably pe paid 100 bucks, the other 2900 are called surplus value, part of it will go to mantaining the company, part will go to whoever owns it and did absolutely nothing to earn this money in most cases. Without old henry, those 3k dollars would not be there so i can say his work is worth 3k dollars.
(sorry for that one i got the numbers wrong it's 10% which is still a minority, here is the oficial stuff still i personaly belive the numbers can get smaller if you take away jobs that are not really self employed like uber drivers etc..)
The point i am trying to make here is that most people working at walmart have no real alternative, maybe some other shitty retail job, that changes nothing. You can't just answer:
Literaly spewing neoliberal propaganda.If you want to belive in this go on. You know it's bullshit.

Pay attention before claiming things.
Which would still qualify them for many welfare programs to boost their income. My point is that the cliff occurs AT around 30k, not that the salary IS 30k. I never said the walmart salary WAS 30k, I mentioned 30k in regards to the cliff/drop-off.
Where is your citation, friend? I already made mine here:
My example specifically includes single mothers, a demographic that has only been increasing given the increase of out-of-wedlock marriages.
My example was in Pennsylvania. Where's your citation from?
Or is it just… an anecdote? EBT isn't the only welfare assistance program single people can utilize btw.
Anecdotes do not dictate anything but your own personal experience. I will trust statistical evidence first.
Also, you might want to drop your wage down, in that case. You could potentially qualify for more if you meet the standards in whatever state you live in.
No, I do not believe in theft.
I do not care about your SOB story, if we're being honest. The real world is not sunshine and roses, sorry to let you know. Who cares, my dog died and I couldn't afford the surgery, boo hoo. Shit happens, we die all the time.
It would also depend on how many illegals you have in your state, too.

Surplus value

They should be paid more, actually. There must always be a difference between wages paid and the use value of the goods if the capitalist wants to produce and maintain a profit. I'm saying they should be paid that difference if they were given the full value.

It's what is the socially necessary labor time to produce the good.
Generally, capitalist do, though. They can't take as long as they like because of market forces at play. It also makes it easier for them to make a super profit by appropriate value in exchange.

*appropriating value in exchange

The entirety of welfare robs people from independence and self-sufficiency. The welfare state has not shown any shrinkage, welfare expenditure has only grown as a percentage of the overall federal spending to balloon up to the overall majority. Pension ponzi schemes that will never be paid back or systems that incentivize abusing the drop-offs will, naturally, produce bubbles.
It is from the free market, there is compelling evidence showing charitable contributions reaching the hundreds of billions prior to the interventionism of the welfare state. I think Molyneux has a good argument and well-sourced data showing charitable donations over time, it's the welfare presentation.
If you mean in terms of healthcare, I don't understand why they would to begin with. Why does walmart care if you have a bowel condition?
Better ways than creating ponzi schemes like pensions that will never actually reach the next generation.
Pay for your own stuff, that's what I say. I don't want to take care of anybody but myself.
Define desperate. In what way? Walmart isn't forcing you to work, go and tell them off tomorrow.
Seize the day. I don't have to tell you where your solution lies, I know my own. Mine is to not steal from people who have more than me or covet their assets and to take care of myself.
Why would it be cheap, college is meant to be a barrier to weed people out; I would suggest examining the result of state subsidization of student loans to find out how fucking quickly they jacked up the interest rates, though. Food for thought.
Not enough. Fuck if I know.
If you can't compete in the marketplace with your business idea, why is that anybody else's fault but your own? Not everyone is meant to succeed in businesses anyways, there is a high barrier delineating between the skillful and the meek. That's why I find it funny that people dismiss CEOs and their capabilities from their soapboxes when they admit to their own incapabilities at creating businesses of their own. Makes no sense.
You never asked. I answered it: charitable donations.
You are correct. But I don't think they should exist at all. I do not believe in stealing from successful businesses and calling it greedy when they don't want to have their shit taken to pay for somebody they will never meet.

Have you even been to a fucking Walmart before? Holy shit, I got baited good.

If the wall gets build, there'll be less people fighting over those jobs.

Oh god, this thread's gone full autism. What drives a man to argue with a fool?

Correct. Profit drives businesses to succeed. Also, it isn't henry's business. If he wants all the profits to himself, tell him to read the employment contract before he signs it: clearly states his non-ownership. He can start his own business if he wants all the profits. Make shit for yourself, by yourself, then it's your own. Assemble an iphone that you never advertised, created the framework for, or mined the materials, and you are paid not for the worth OF the iphone, but the salary you agreed to.
Absolutely nothing except for created the employment opportunity and the business, like Bill Gates. He "does nothing" just as the guy who plants a tree and waits for the apples to fall down does nothing. Without his intervention at finding the seed and harbouring the growth, the business you want to steal the non-existent surplus value from would not exist.
No. Plain wrong.
Yes, that's why I pushed back: I know you're wrong. Including those employed by the self-employed, that's 30% of the workforce.
What the fuck else would uber drivers be, then? I guess they technically work for uber, but uber isn't a self-employed company.
Sounds like a personal problem. Learn a trade, then. I'm not your dad, kid.
Literally spewing irrational drivel.

Or, you know, just start communism and get rid of profits.

The reference point is the conclusion drawn as a result of the reference point? We know the surplus value amount because it comes from the surplus value? There is no such thing as surplus value, the worker isn't self-employed so he doesn't own it. And I've already debunked this one-dimensional notion of labour being "I work and create something". Farmers who hire you to pick shit from their farmland don't owe you the sales of everything they get for the fruit you sell just because you helped him sell it. There are many forces that were involved in selling the item that you had no hand in, so you don't deserve the surplus value any more than they do.
You want arbitrary promotions, go work for yourself. You don't own what you don't create, and you don't create shit if you work for somebody else (labour doesn't work like that anymore, anyways).
But what is the amount of socially necessary labour time to create the bare minimum necessity for a standard of living? Who determines this?
I've been asking you how this is determined, you're just begging the question by saying it just is (i.e. standard for necessary work as it relates to individual requirements for existence within society).

Irrelevant, my anecdotes are meaningless.

If you can't defend your ideas from criticism, just let me know and we can call it a day.

Have fun with that. It's a denial of pragmatism that has not existed, and there is no compelling evidence beyond unfalsifiable alarmism that points to its existence, anyways.

You're exaggerating a walmart wage by almost 50%. It make your example not really all that relevant.

This is why I critique your reading comprehension.

This is very much true. My personal experience with walmart over the course of six years or so was pretty much all bad. That also gave me insight into how other walmart workers felt about their situation, or rather, how little choice they had in their opportunities for employment elsewhere.
My point here is that I have personal experience with everything we are talking about. You have one chart for one state (which doesn't account for quite a few things that disqualify people from benefits, assuming a best-case scenario) from someone who has a bit of a bias in the matter. It isn't that trustworthy of a citation, if we're being honest.

Then you have come to the right place - capitalism is inherent theft of labor value. That said, this also indicates that you've never been in a bad economic situation - which is good for you - yet it is a reality for millions. Your desire to let other humans suffer so that the wealthy and powerful can become more wealthy and more powerful is bad for society.

That's fine dude, I don't expect you to. But that SOB story is life for millions. Wanting to fixor improve the system that created the suffering isn't a bad thing. Being okay with the suffering of others when you can do something to change their situation is what I find repulsive about what you are saying. I mean what is the end game of your commentary? A monolithic for-profit employer? Company stores? People living in walmart appartments, driving cars to walmart that they rented from walmart so they can go to work at walmart? That's a dark future for humanity. I'd rather not.

Not many - too cold.

I'll give it to you straight: The man who argues on the internet seriously is a fag, 100% of the time. It's just mental masturbation in the public sphere.

user, what am I going to do with a sourceless graph that doesn't care to define the context of productivity?
Discussing how sub 30k jobs qualify for welfare in certain states is relevant when you agree that walmart is sub 30k and that the 30k point is where the cliff starts to drop off.
I said my example included single mothers, your example was an anecdote with no citation asserting a truth that non-parents only qualify for ~200 on EBT. I said my example was different. You were the one who introduced a variable my citation was not dealing with.
Even more reason to toss it out the window.
You just made your experiences irrelevant by admitting to their inability to be extended to make a claim on data: it's one instance that's six years old. What is the difference between 200 and 300? Where's your citation?
Also, the 'best case scenario' is simply looking at single moms. That was the demographic in the image's description. The only scenario is an applicant who qualifies, like a single mother.
You accuse me of bias when I can do the same, just as easily, to rebuke your six-year-old citation. Not to mention, your first image isn't even a citation. There is literally no link, yet you cast irrational skepticism at my citation without any examination of the claims? Makes no sense.
If the worker is self-employed and somebody steals what he has, that's theft. If the worker is working for another person and signs a contract that specifies his non-ownership, then that isnt theft.
How the hell can you say that without actually verifying it? How many people have lived through your specific anecdote? Millions? What is this, amateur hour? Gargantuan claim without proofs.
>Being okay with the suffering of others when you can do something to change their situation
No obligation, I'm not your mother.

I love to bust a nut.

When my folks went to college they were able to pay for it with part-time summer jobs. Now it takes decades to pay off - and a lot of people never pay it off. It's a new vector for debt-slavery that has arisen in the last couple decades. I think when you say college should 'weed people out' it should be based on their ability to perform, not their ability to pay for schooling. That's just an arbitrary economic barrier that keeps the poor and middle class uneducated and, well, poor. Should elementary schools 'weed people out' if their parents can't afford the tuition? Doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Education should be an equalizer.

Classic fallacy of capitalists. It ignores every other market force that competes against you, no matter how unfairly they act. Look at how Microsoft dominated the computer market in the early 90s. You don't have to have a better product if you can file enough frivolous lawsuits against your competitors which tangle up their burgeoning company in litigation for a decade and then offer to buy them out for a fraction of what their idea would have been worth without lawyers killing it in the crib.
Good ideas don't always win when you're competing against billionaires who will lie, cheat, litigate against, bribe lawmakers to pass bills against, steal, or kill you for what you have. That's like believing any rag-tag militia can stand up against any army because of some fanciful notion of a 'fair marketplace of militarism' or some kind of nonsense like that. You don't need a better product to be successful if you're just a ruthless-enough dick to people - which is the kind of people you are promoting to the highest positions of power with your 'fuck everybody I got mine' ideology.

Aren't those businesses successful to some degree because of the countries they exist in? Countries maintained by public funds and public interests? Public funds educated those workers, constructed the roads they use, created a lot of the technology that the private market capitalizes on, regulates the trade routes that walmart requires to sell its products, and hell, if you've even been to a walmart you've probably seen a cop car somewhere nearby. The public are providing the very foundation for everything that makes walmart a viable business - walmart doesn't exist in a vacuum of private market - it exists in a verymuch public sphere. Shouldn't it be expected to give back in some way after it has so greatly benefited from public money/time/energy?
By the way, take a look at charts nine through sixteen: all deal with either single parent, two child or two parents, two child scenarios that clearly demonstrate the dropoff. The welfare program isn't designed for single males anyways, single mothers are LOVING the whole system because the government fills the role of the breadwinner, in essence.
It also intuitively follows. If you are a demographic like single mothers, or some disabled single guy who qualifies for welfare, you earn what you barely get part-time, which amounts to (generally speaking) close to or slightly above 20k, plus the benefits in welfare, which depend on the state (can vary depending on what you qualify for, but it isn't outlandish for someone who qualifies for one program to also qualify for another, like TANF or SNAP), will boost the ~20k up a lot. If you get to a point where the added welfare plus the part-time work becomes less than the full-time work minus the added welfare, then you would be smart to realize the dropoff and to abuse it to just work part-time and get free shit from the government.

(Not the same user)

It's this argument again. It is reducible to "We need college to be expensive so that we don't have too many competent people otherwise salaries will go down because there were be too many people willing to do a give task."

Higher education (that includes both tech schools and colleges) is the place where people obtain useful skills and knowledge that they need for the modern world. Nobody argues that we shouldn't have free primary and secondary education because it is absolutely undeniable that employers need people who can read and write. It would be unfathomable to imagine someone arguing we shouldn't offer free primary and secondary education on the basis that too many people knowing how to read would devalue the jobs where people read. Do you see the problem with your argument? I hope so. It suggests that skills are directly equatable to commodities. The demand for skills is not the same as demand for goods and thus does not behave the same way. The military does not restrict the amount of recruits out of fear of devaluing the skill of being able to march and load a rifle.

Are you seriously this naïve? If charities could stop poverty, my comrade, it would have already happened. There are hundreds of charities in NYC alone that are focused on ridding NYC of poverty. Unless you are one of those people who believe all charities are money-laundering operations, you'd have a very hard time denying this point.

You don't seem to realize why people work for Wal-mart. Here's a hint: it is not because it is fun. I dare say it is not fun at all. Wal-mart for some people is their only viable option.

I get the sense that you're a burger, but have you never been to a small town?
How can you be so disconnected from the reality of your countrymen?
I've told you where I started working at age 16. Where did you first work? Have you ever spent REAL time with people who for one reason or another, be it a health issue of theirs or a family member's, drug conviction or addiction, immigration status or heck just a poor education or disability of some other sort that disqualifies them from office work? They are real people, without hope for the future. Your commentary makes me think you find corporate profits to be more important than human lives. If that is indeed your ideology I pity you, but I pity those harmed by it far more.

My contention is more that America is collapsing for the increasing number of poor people. That's a very unfortunate reality at a time where corporate profits are increasing.

I think we agree that shuffling around government programs won't fix that, but it's almost maliciously stupid to believe that this problem can be fixed by private charity.

There are way too many unemployed qualified workers for a union to have any leverage.

Hey bud, take me up on my suggestion, examine interest rate spikes as subsidization of the loans occurred.
You know there are SAT tests and that high school doesn't cost you shit? If you are actually gifted, you get full-ride.
Few people are actually honestly gifted, though. So don't be surprised that it's a minority.
Do you own the university or provide the services? Then it isn't arbitrary if it is a price point determined by the time investment required to educate you.
Degrees you get even IF you were educated rebuke the notion that education equalizes people.
That doesn't exist, but go on.
Is that what happened? What was the nature of the lawsuits? You realize that perjury is also a crime? Also, please source this claim.
That's why I don't support the state drafting laws that allow for the monopolies to kill small businesses that can honestly compete against them. Destroy all regulations keeping small businesses down by allowing big corporations to sue them to hell. Your argument is more against the legislation than it is the opportunist big companies.
They would not use the law to their advantage if it didn't exist.
First world nations offer loans and don't print money to hyper-inflate their currencies like they do in Zimbabwe, sure. At least not anymore.
Your own funds, from taxation.
Private enterprise can provide literally everything you just stated. Except for the regulations, who cares about those. I thought you wanted to defend the little guy, so why support regulation that often limits the little guy from engaging in trade to compete in the market?

unions are useless and only lead to social democracy just wait and soon the revolution will happen and this will all come tumbling down

Check out the garbo this guy is having published on Forbes-

He, like you, continues to disregard the external factors that impact this problem. He is unable to propose any change external to the welfare system that could reduce the need for welfare. The reality is that this will never come from the external market because they have a financial incentive to resist it and political influence to guarantee that it doesn't happen. The people will get poorer, the executives will get richer. Do that long enough and we get feudalism back.

The loan costs and admission rates only exponentially increased as a result of state subsidization, the tuition costs used to be negligible a few generations ago.
Also, SAT and other competency exams exist to weed people out, if you are gifted, you get a full ride. Doesn't always mean it's to the Ivy League, but what makes you think you're that hot shit, anyways.
Not free if the teachers are paid by tax dollars.
Literally nobody said this, you thought that's what I said and ran with it. I never said colleges make their shit expensive to arbitrarily stifle the market, if you agree that the big companies only care about profit, then they wouldn't care if people entered into college to pay them up the ass anyways. They would be more than willing to accept business if it means more profit.
Appeal to nirvana. They can do a better job, as they historically have done, than the welfare state as it relates to single parents and the welfare cliff.
Good on those charities. I don't care about poverty and I have no obligation to help people who have failed in life or were born in shit circumstances, it's their fault or their parents fault, respectively. The people who have failed due to conditions they cannot control have my sympathy, but not access to my wallet.
I don't think charities are money laundering operations. I don't believe the NYC charities are all money laundering operations.
Work as a tradesmen, then. Get a better skill.

I think we've finally arrived at the heart of your worldview.

You made a specific claim about one of your three days off and going to a building you mentioned. You said it was the same for millions. Not everyone shares your anecdote and the wiki only proves my point that poverty works differently for everyone.
I get the sense that you're a burger, but have you never been to a big town?
Who cares what you or I have done, fucking drop the retarded anecdotes already, rely on evidence instead.
The "labour department" is not a source, do you have access to the study used and the methodology in determining the production so I can read it? Like, an actual citation. Also, I would not be surprised that the earnings would have peaked in that era, the economic conditions were different than they are in 2015.
Why is this a bad thing? Why is inequality inherently bad so as to just point at it and expect some visceral reaction?
No citation, again.
I never denied the existence of poverty, why would you think that when I proposed alternative ways to address it?
I don't let anecdotes dictate evidence-based discussions. You ought to follow suit, your personal experiences are literally meaningless in this discussion. This isn't a blogpost, friend.
Click on your link and try to find the link to the report. It takes you to one other article that claims something completely different than 'paycheck to paycheck':

The other link takes you to the following:
Which also claims something different and moves the goalposts from 'paycheck to paycheck' to 'shrinking middle class': of people in poverty in the past 12 months by state and puerto rico: 2009

Appealing to the personal ideology of a person to discredit their claims is easily extended to you.
I never said that kids weren't in poverty to some degree, I made a specific claim that you didn't address: the welfare cliff.
I didn't know citing one guy's claims on one issue meant that I had to agree with him on all issues.
I disagree with him, I think they must destroy all welfare and regulation, it's a failed ponzi scheme that pales in comparison to charitable donations prior to the welfare state's introduction.
So? Why is this an inherently bad thing? People are not equal and allowing freedom will only emphasis their inabilities.

This still doesn't create an obligation out of thin air. I own my wallet, not other people. Why don't you start with yourself, go donate your own funds to the needy, leave me the fuck alone. I don't care, I'm not your dad.

Your alternative is the rough equivalent of farting in their faces and telling them to 'get better skills'. It's childishly unrealistic to the point of appearing like trolling.

> of people in poverty in the past 12 months by state and puerto rico: 2009
Cite your claims that you make so others don't have to.

Organize them in >>>/walmart/ lmao

Never said this. You asked what the reference point was for work done by an employee being worth more than what he gets paid.

Never said he did. He does, however, give the capitalist surplus labor. The capitalist takes it because he has the power to do so due to the relations of production.
Sure you do. You create and sell your labor power
Sure, no one objectively deserves anything. But when we're talking labor being used as instrument of production, we can point to where profit comes from and determine the value of what that labor is in relation to it.
Never said I did. You're having an argument with yourself now.

Socially necessary labor time relates to the relations of production. I'm not seeing who is extracting profit in the form of surplus value in this scenario. Maybe you meant something about surplus labor, in which case, necessary labor is what the worker spends creating value equal to the value of their wage. Variable capital determines how much surplus labor workers do relative to necessary labor.
I told you. Socially necessary labor time. I assumed you had some idea what that was because you're so vehemently against the idea of surplus value.
It's not for individual requirements though.It's the average amount of time it takes to produce a product for market. I think you might be confusing it with surplus labor.

And you said it was the surplus value. Which is determined how? The item has to first be SOLD within a marketplace. Just making shit and not selling it for an employer doesn't mean the employee earns anything: the entire business doesn't.
Not until the item is introduced within the marketplace. Nobody cares how hard the employee works to make a phone if it's never sold in a market.
Also, read contracts before you sign them. The surplus value doesn't exist when you sign onto its non-existence in regards to the salary.
His business, not yours. Also, the one-dimensional concept of labour is outdated and archaic, production is an inter-connected effort to produce one item, like an iphone: no one worker deserves the 'surplus value' (profit) the iphone is sold at.
I don't own my own labour when I sign off on my time investment for a salary. Labour isn't corporeal, it's just a time investment. It's a promise bound by a contract.
The value is determined by the worth of the item/service within the marketplace. You can work as hard as you want, the owner doesn't pay you shit until it is sold in some circumstances. In other cases, you are paid regardless, but the owner has some faith in the success of the product.
De facto, you do when you call for the surplus value meme being added to the salary even though you signed a contract that dismisses the concept because you don't own the business.
Determined by?
There is no value the worker adds by merely working, if he works as hard that "is necessary" as he thinks it is, that is all meaningless if nobody buys the item he just made. Also, workers don't 'produce' items in vacuums, so the surplus value is never actually able to be boiled down to one person.
Determined by markets, not how hard you work.
It is when you are discussing the necessary standard of living as it relates to the amount of work required to meet this, which I was/am.
Exactly, which is sold on the market, completely distinct from the labour the worker puts into the item.

you are a fucking retard and should kill yourself.

The dude thinks charities are the best solution to poverty. Literally pre-Christmas Scrooge level an-cap trolling.

This is what capitalism does to humanity.

French Trots in the late 70's tried to radicalize Carrefour ("french Walmart") employees :és_communistes_pour_l'autogestion

Have you ever noticed how all communists are anorexic or obese?
Communism is weak people banding together to steal from strong people.
Don't be fooled by the lies peddled by the Jews.
With the internet you have all the information to educate yourself, to become skilled and strong
All you need is some humility to admit your own failures. And grow from there.

Every communist state ends up the same

"Communism has never been tried"

Chinese Soviet Republic
East Germany
Free Territory
North Korea
North Vietnam
People's Republic of Korea
over a dozen US military bases in Syria
South Yemen
Soviet Union
Zapatista territories

Shame europe got buttblasted by the pinnacle of your dumpster fire of an ideology, go shine your boss's oxfords somewhere else

Well, it has to hold social value, not just "SOLD". That still doesn't discount the fact that the capitalist attempts to make an estimate of what this will be on the market, and produces accordingly.

Never said it wasn't. The labor power, however, belongs to the worker, which he takes more than it takes plenty of.

No one said anyone deserves anything. Regardless, the surplus value isn't profit. Profit is what is extracted in the process. No one wants the profit. The goal is to do away with it.

Yes and no, since if he fails to extract surplus, and pay the full value of the labor, his business will fail. I don't know of any capitalist who isn't trying to turn a profit, so the relationship is the same.
I mean, neither does profit when the capitalist first starts his business. Not seeing why this matters.
Which is why I said you give it up.
Right, it's a commodity.
You're confusing price with value.
I mean, if we're talking contracts, he actually does.
Nope. I would take it because it's my interest to. Technically, I wouldn't be adding my surplus value to my salary, I would be dissolving the institution itself so I wouldn't need financial capital. Still having argument by yourself.
Now we're getting into the das mudpie argument. No one is saying that it's determined by what the worker thinks is necessary.

Sure, which is why socially necessary labor time is a part of the process.
the profit can't, but we're not talking about profit. It's to be done away with.
Determined by the capitalist after he makes a determination about how well his product will do on the market. I also never said socially necessary labor time was determined by how hard you work; in fact, it's often the reverse.
Not really, unless you can show how the worker is using surplus labor of another to extract surplus value for profit and then sell the commodity produced.

What do you think a market is without commodities? I have to ask.

dozens of countries have tried your failed ideology which forces people to subscribe. They voluntarily moved back to capitalism.
You are free to accept or reject capitalism.

If communism is so great, start your own communist business and watch it grow. Watch it grow because the workers will come flooding to your business to get better working conditions right?

Why not start today? Be your own communist overlord.

*takes plenty of



ohhh I forgot communists don't have any initiative and hate businesses. Hmm well enjoy your fantasies

We have initiatives, just none of them lie in being a retard who doesn't know how communism works.

communists hate private businesses, not business in general.


Communism is a mental disease. Throw off your shackles and get away from these losers.

you're right violence never solves anything. we'll just vote to get the private business owners to give up all their capital, I'm sure they'll cooperate. The point of the revolution is to wrest the power from the hands of the people who profit from it.

If you can think of a better way, be my guest.

user, how many billions of dollars and tens of thousands of people do western governments have to kill in a communist country before you acknowledge the fact that ideologies and nations do not exist in vacuums?

Go over your list again and look into which countries have had just the US 'influence' them in one way or another. Just glancing at it I can see a few instances where the US has invaded and murdered the country's leaders so that they could install a corporate-sponsored puppet ruler. (There's a good amount of history around the invasion of Grenada, which is a pretty egregious example of imperialism - I'd suggest starting your reading there).

I also noticed that Cuba was absent on your list despite literally hundreds of assassination attempts by the US. Funny how that works. Would Cuba be on your list if the US had successfully destabilized them? I bet it would. Funny how that works.

Here's a decent lecture from Michael Parenti about this subject.

Wew lad

it's almost like capitalism requires no violent overthrow because the people who are responsible for it are already at the top. rlly maeks u think huh

I already told you. If your system can't start small, and grow naturally it is a shit system.

80% of millionaires are self made.
75% of billionaires are self made. The "rich" is an ever shifting flow of people, most of who made it on merit and hard work providing services to other people.

Why do you think capitalism is shit?

you really don't understand how capitalism works, do you.

Soviets loved to extend their influence overseas, too. It wasn't a race for the proxy war battle without purpose, silly. US imperialism just won because the Soviet experiment was doomed to fail.

Really makes you think.
The best cure for communism is a vacation in cuba. I've even met a few libtards who visited and got red pilled.

I don't fully support the wars against communism, but it's a dangerous scam akin to a pyramid scheme. People are naturally greedy, lazy, and trusting. Communism plays to our deepest weaknesses.
Communism is not an easy thing to escape. Decades later Russia still suffers from communist dogma and way of thinking. But at least they are dozens times more wealthy under capitalism, like every country that drops it.

Do me a favor and google the top 10 billionaires in the world, tell me what they've done for society. Compare it to your own achievements and try to honestly tell me you deserve 1/10th of what they've provided.

People gave them money of their own free will. You gave them money, because they did something for you. Why do you hate freedom?

Who said anything about eradicating violence? Oh right you did. Capitalism requires non-stop violence by the ruling class against the working class and your claim was that any system that requires violence is a shit system, well I guess capitalism is a shit system. There will always be violence due to things like psychopaths existing, but removing class divides will severely reduce the amount of violence if you're so concerned.

so why do you think a system like capitalism where wealth is funneled to business owners instead of to the workers who actually provide the services? The CEO doesn't do shit, his workers do. Why do you love working for someone else rather than for yourself?

War is constant despite the method resource allocation. Game theory denotes communist leadership have exorbitant power to enslave and cause struggle.
North Korea for example, threatens nuclear war just to feed their people on the backs of Chinese and American capitalists. Their failed system can't even provide for their people autonomously.

Precisely - nations do not exist in vacuums. They have to compete against the other nations because to not compete is to die, wouldn't you agree? Isn't there something inherently similar to capitalism within this arrangement?

The Soviets could either sit back and be overtaken, or they could expand.
The US was in a similar position. They both chose to expand rather than contract.

The US did win this race of expansion - though I don't think the explanation is as simple as 'the Soviet experiment was doomed to fail'

So again I ask, how many billions of dollars, how many thousands of murders, how many assassinated rulers, how many trade embargos does it take for you to acknowledge that maybe systems that fail aren't 'doomed to fail' but rather forced to fail?

Stupid meme repeated by leftists who have never worked anywhere near a CEO.
Look at the resume of your average CEO. PLEASE, educate yourself.
The average CEO has 30 years of experience, often within the same company, and personally have decades of relationships with the people they work with, and know a good deal about every part of the business.

If CEOs didn't do anything, just be your own CEO and watch the money flow in!

An addendum, do the math. I know communists are bad at math, but try it. CEOs and all executives could all work for free, and the minimum wage of Mcdonalds workers would only increase by $0.03 an hour.

Is overthrowing the CEO really worth 3 cents an hour to you?

The 'social value' is determined by the marketplace of consumers who determine the value. Depends on who you ask, though, as the individual is the one who determines the subjective value it has to them.
Not when you work using the capitalist's machinery, utilities, and his business.
Yes, it is. It is the illegitimate assertion that the profit belongs to the worker just because he helped build it, even though none of the workers own the business.
Try and do away with gravity, too.
Revolt all you want, markets will still find a way and people will still trade with a risk-factor involved to include a profit motive as compensation.
And, by extension, businesses too, then? Yeah, I guess that's why the whole communist revolution meme has died off. Doesn't work like that anymore.
Capitalists turn a profit that only becomes relevant to the issue when the item is sold in the marketplace. Valuing the item without actually doing shit with it in a marketplace to determine the demand for the item begs the question: who determines the demand, which sets the value it has to the consumer?
Circumstantially true because there are no profits. Once the business owner starts to get a profit, it's all his because he owns the business. Owning things means you get the result of their success or failure.
Yup, so it isn't yours anymore. Your labour that is under somebody else that you signed off on means it is not 'your labour' anymore.
Commodities aren't incorporeal.
The price is determined by the value an item is perceived to have. The price varies subjectively just as the perceived value does, as the demand exponentially increases, so, too, does the price (as it relates to the supply, of course).
And you will be terminated from your employment for breaching the conditions you signed on to. Add "denial of contractual agreements" to the list of things communists want to abolish, along with . gravity, business, and currency.
Yeah, I said it's the consumer and only the individual consumer (as well as the overall consumerbase, as a whole).
Unless it exists within a market, whoever determines the social necessity is not the authority to determine what the consumerbase actually thinks.
Easier said than done, that is not how the world actually works. It exists, you are committing a classic is-ought fallacy. Your non-pragmatic predictions about the future are irrelevant to the 'is'.
The capitalist can set as many prices as he pleases. Consumers can ignore them, as they do. Now, the capitalist must lower them or risk irrelevancy.
No, it still makes it directly relevant to the necessary standards of living as it relates to the amount of 'necessary' work.
Commodities exist within markets, of course. Labour is not a commodity, labour is an action.

Let me repeat myself. The CEO doesn't do actual labor, his employees do. The surplus value of their labor is his profit, rather than their pay. The boss is completely unnecessary in this entire formula.

Not really… They're full oligarchy now. Didn't you hear?

I can't say I'd blame people leaving Cuba after the hurricanes that went through this year. If I had lived in the Caribbean this summer I would certainly be moving to the mainland.

How well that will work anywhere beyond your imagination, lol.

Where are the capitalist gulag systems again? Oh right, capitalists aren't lawmakers, they are private citizens.

You don't seem to know what communism is…
Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Maybe that'll help a bit? You're talking about slavery existing under communism, how would you separate fascism from communism? Something tells me you think they're synonyms.

Google "prison".

Doesn't the US have more prisoners now than Stalin did at the height of gulagdom?

1. Do you believe stock market participators are self interested and rational?
2. Do you believe stock market prices are an indicator of future worth of a company?
3. If market buyers do not believe CEOs do important work for the company, then why can the stock price fluctuate several million in market cap when resignations are announced?

Yup, state capitalism of the USSR and the US won. Communism failed, it only exists on paper and in the non-pragmatic predictions of the pseudo-scientific who think unfalsifiable hypotheses are valid, like "just trust me, any day now the great revolution will come, just look at this unsourced alarmist chart!"
They are ultimately doomed to fail if they cannot defend themselves.

Fucking lol.
This why we call you classcucks
I love freedom. It’s why I want labor to be free. >:3

Except for acting as the chief executive officer. It's in the name.

Let me guess, Bill Gates is inconsequential?
His business, not yours.

Yeah, capitalists don't have a court system to interpret laws they never drafted, moron. That's what a state does.

Yeah, the US doesn't have retarded laws that punish 'counter-revolutionaries' for thought crimes.

laughing at ur life

That means that all one system has to do to maintain dominance is kill every competing system. It doesn't mean that it's better for the people or the planet or anything like that, just that it's more willing or better at killing its competitors.

I guess to put that a different way, imagine that the Soviets got nuclear tech five years earlier than the west and used said technology to decimate everyone they saw as an enemy. That would make communism a successful system in your eyes? Because it had the biggest stick and was the most willing to kill?

This is the ideology of bullies and brutes, not of intelligent and reasonable men.

Someone doesn't know their US history.

Yup, then it's the best. They were able to conquer the enemies.
Yeah, come down from that soapbox, you're embarrassing yourself.
US standard of living far defeated anything the Soviets were ever able to produce.
Yeah nah m8. Step back into reality, the US won. Marx was wrong, his ideas failed miserably, the pseudo-scientific ramblings about 'da future', that is.

Yeah nah, not even remotely comparable.

Reading is hard for capitalists, it's okay.

aahahahahahahhaha I love the redefinition
Is Venezuela socialist? Oh wait, the MoP wasn't publicly owned…. oh but that doesn't matter, the state is the same thing, right? ahahahahah

Sedition:conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
I literally do not see a difference. Unless you mean to say Stalin had a device that could read thoughts?

State capitalism: a political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital.
Well shit I guess you tried.
Clear demarcation between that and a peacetime USSR that was arresting and forcing slave labour from innocent kulaks whose crime was having more than others and refusing to allow for thievery.

Try harder.

Cool, it just goes to show that famines are an everyday normal thing to capitalists.

At least you admit to constant class genocide.
Well, when you allow for people to compete, many will naturally fail. Speaks to their inability more than it does 'da system'.

So then why the false concern about the poor Kulaks? You said it yourself, many will naturally fall under capitalism. Places under state capitalism like the USSR would be included right? Why didn't the Kulaks just outcompete then? Doesn't that just speak for their inability rather than the system?

idk I disagree with Lenin's jihad against a class of people. That's why most people hate tyrannical, genocidal regimes bud.
Not by force, but by inability to propagate their existence: their own inability. The kulaks were killed, they didn't just die off. Difference in action vs inaction.
Talks about state capitalism in the USSR, a very specific and vague interpretation of capitalist thought.
Disallowed free trade.


Agreed, that's why I'm against capitalism which is inherently tyranical and genocidal since it always leads to monopolies and killing off anyone not included in the monopoly's secret club.
They knew a revolution was taking place, they could have given up their private property or moved elsewhere. Not my fault they chose death.
Disallowed how? The Kulaks could have overthrown the government or complied with their laws if they forbid them to do things, that was their own choice that they didn't, just as it's a worker's choice to join a company or starve to death.

You have it backwards.
Yeah, it's a commodity that he has sold to him.
No, it actually isn't. Surplus value itself doesn't equal profits. It has to be realized first.
Not the point of Marx at all. It's a description of the relationship, not an assertion that profit should go to the worker.
How is financial capital like gravity?

No, actually. Changing the structure of business isn't the same as doing away with business. They want to do away with business as a relationship built on capitalist property.
It's actually relevant before he even sells, because a good capitalist has to turn a profit in order to compete and reinvest.
I agree. Which is why laborers selling their labor power isn't an ideal situation for many.
Yes, actually, they can be. You can commodify anything if there's demand. It's why services are considered commodities.
No, not necessarily, since commodities sell above and below value all the time. Price is only the form of appearance of value. Value can't be created in exchange.
You're stating the obvious to me. It's why we want to change the dynamic itself.
Well, what you said was " if he works as hard that "is necessary" as he thinks it is", which isn't how necessary labor works.
I think you missed the point. Even before he goes to market, he's trying to gauge what the outcome will be and pricing accordingly, regardless of it actually being there.
Then show how the worker is using surplus labor of another to extract surplus value for profit and then sell the commodity produced.
Services are commodities, as I just pointed out. Yes, your labour can be a commodity.

It's to be done away with if people want communism because that's how it would works, not because I think anyone ought to. If you can find a better path to communism, be my guest.
I wasn't making a prediction. This isn't even an argument I'm making.

Probably, if you cant cope with actually being an integral part of society. Communism works like a circuit board while Capitalism is more like a black hole being fed through a funnel.

Capitalism is a system that allows for free trade and voluntary association, nobody is going out with capitalist death squads to kill the lower classes or upper classes as is observed in perverted implementations of Communism against the upper classes.
It is also the opposite of tyranny: there is no tyranny in capitalism that is forced on you if you voluntarily sign a contract. Tyranny isn't voluntary.
Success breeds jealousy.
Not my problem if you can't feed yourself. Not 'da system's' fault for exposing your inabilities.
By an actual genocidal tyranny.
Why would they? The state doesn't own it, they do. Their farmland, not the state's.
As much as a murder victim chooses murder. A portion of the blame is on the deceased, you and I agree: they should have known better to be able to defend against criminals.

Nope, it is the opposite: social value is determined by the consumers. The social value is only as relevant as the consumers let it be.
Circumstantially, by another capitalist. Or they start their shit from the ground-up, like Bill Gates.
Irrelevant, profits still exist so long as they are traded goods in a marketplace and profit is derived from the exchange. Once this is accomplished, then the worker steps in with the false victim complex and says "I somehow own the shit I barely helped produce even though I signed a contract that says otherwise, I own it…even though we should fuck off with the ownership of the business".
Excellent, then none of the profits that are earned from selling something Apples sells to consumers in the US should go to the workers who assemble the iphone in the form of anything beyond their mutually agreed-upon salary.
You've presented as much evidence that it will vanish in the global scale as you have with gravity, beyond predictions that are unfalsifiable/faith-based.
You are lying, you do not want businesses to exist if you believe in regulating them out the ass. If you are honest in your claim that businesses would not be done away with, then they would be allowed to associate/trade freely.
So regulating businesses according to your unproven ideology. Yeah, that hasn't worked, you don't own the businesses so it's just your opinion of how they should form themselves.
Not on the market. Absence of advertisement of the product or any marketing ought to make this obvious. Have you ever participated in a business venture? See how relevant your product is before it is introduced into the marketplace by some form of advertisement or word-of-mouth. Prior to this, it is worthless, no matter how much sentimental value or subjective value you think it has: that is your opinion, not the consumer-base's opinion (which is what matters).
Don't sign contracts you don't want to uphold.
Commodities cannot be incorporeal, time and labour are qualities of the universe and actions, not corporeal entities.
Commodities are raw materials, they are not actions, like labour. "Labour" is not a commodity, it is the action of work.
What makes you think the perception is universal? Strawman interpretation of what I said. I specifically said 'perceived to be'.
The revolution will always fail so long as the middle class exists to debunk the victim narrative.
I say 'he thinks' because there is no other way to determine the individual's standard of necessary living: people have different aspirations and invest time in different hobbies, which cost different amounts for all people, hence the malleability of the 'necessary' standard of living for different people.
Predicting what the price will be. This prediction can be calculated and can just as easily fall flat on its face if the consumerbase's general opinion rejects it.
Surplus labour does not exist, there is only labour. Labour is an action, if you work in excess of what fulfils the action that you are employed to complete, nobody owes you anything IF you do not actually demonstrate your skill set to your employer. Newsflash: nobody cares how much excess you work at your job, nobody cares how much harder you think you work. Work smarter, not harder.
Services are actions, not commodities. Commodities are bananas and sugar, not waiting on tables.

That's how is will work in the ideal scenario. That is divorced from reality and exists only in your fantasies.
Then the whole argument about the 'dynamic structure that has to be changed' is not a prediction. So where's your evidence beyond faith-based speculation?

thanks obama


Yes, it does, and misinterpreting the quite-clear citation as being something else, like extending TANF to single men when that just makes no sense, it stupid: it's obvious I was talking about single moms with children if you bothered to read the citation. I even followed up with charts in Illinois if Pennsylvania wasn't good enough.

your bumbled up sentence is funny, I don't care what your claims are.

Speaks more to your reading comprehension than anything else, really.

way to ruin the joke.

The walmart I work in hasn't filtered the fryer in about a year and the managers refuse to change it. We've been serving food that can potentially poison someone for months now. We've tried talking to the managers many times, and they just shrug it off.

Next economic collapse when?
Reformation of well armed and motivated Unions into actual threats to capital when?

This Walmart shit is actually fucked.

That Nazi was arguing well (logically consistent, precise, etc., but of course lacking class analysis), but then he comes out with "da joos." What the hell?

Because that worked well last century

It's not determined by the market, though. It's determined by society acting upon the market as consumers.

Most of capitalism is based on circumstance.
At which point he's a self-employed tradesmen like a plumber, and the relations of production are not the same, which is why we have no problem with it.
Which is why I said it had to be realized. It's relevant if you want to understand how surplus value works.
Well, yeah. That's how capitalism operates. The point of communism isn't to use financial capital to profit.
Why would I present evidence for a claim I never made? I've never said communism is inevitable. Unless you're saying there's no evidence that humans can exist without financial capital, in which case I would just point you to the past.

I'm not

No, I would just have to show that I want to change the relationship of production, not business itself. Slavery is a production relationship that no longer exist in most of the world, yet business does.

Sure, and it's just the capitalist opinion that laborers should sell their labor to him so he can extract their surplus value to profit. Guess I'm not seeing your point.
That's why I said it's relevant before he even sells. He may have to tap into demand, and then calculate what it would be accordingly. If there's some kind of contradiction here, I'm not seeing it.
Don't set up the economy in such a way that it is impossible for businesses to survive without extracting profit.
Sure, and it becomes commodified
I want to know what school economics you follow, because even Ludwig von Mises would disagree with you, and I'm not being facetious.
Never said it was, and wasn't my point. Even if you perceive the value as higher, you may price it lower to compete.
Marx doesn't base his analysis on a victim narrative, but on internal contradictions that lead to crisis.
The wage wouldn't change based on what he thinks his necessary standard of living is, though. It would be socially and historically determined. Not seeing where you're going with this.
Never said he couldn't fail to make the right prediction, regardless he still acts accordingly as if that prediction were true. If everything goes right, he will extract surplus like the rest.
Glad we agree.
Yeah, nobody said "owed". The relationship is simply not in my interest, and I think communism is the best way to end it.
The people here do.

Would he be a nazi if he didn't sperg about da jooz?

Yes, it is. You can observe my arguments and their evidence in a plentiful bounty, but yours are non-pragmatic, only in your imagination. Market forces determine stock prices as they fluctuate depending on a multitude of factors all inextricably linked to one common marketplace.
Which the consumer-base voices via markets by…. money. Yeah, you agree with me, you just don't realize it.
Missed the point. Circumstantial evidence doesn't extend to the absolute. You're using really shitty inductive reasoning while ignoring all other contradictory schools of thought. The fact that private business is lobbying states to leave them alone or to protect their business interests doesn't mean that they are dependent upon said lobbying. You are either deliberately or ignorantly dismissing evidence that demonstrates those same 'benevolent states' working to punish and destroy the result of private enterprise's success, like Rockefeller's oil monopoly, because they felt like it was 'mean'.
Yeah, that's what I mean when I say the false dichotomy of work/starve isn't real: if you can compete in a marketplace with a trade or skill, then there is more than two options. Also, the action of working in order to sustain your life is not dependent on capitalism, you are describing the life process of most mammals.
Then you will disagree with the genocide of kulaks who worked on their own land to produce things for themselves, and to sell whatever they wanted in excess. Or all of it if they damn well pleased.
Realization depends on factual analysis, surplus value is not factual. Nobody cares how much more you produce above the necessary value. If it isn't your business that you're working for, it is irrelevant. It is simply your opinion of what you think you have done. Nothing factual about that to be realized.
Oh, wonderful, then we agree.
We used to exist without antibiotics to. You are fallaciously comparing time periods without accounting for civilizational development.
I hope you are and that you value business, how the fuck do you think the communists paid for their 'worker's revolutions' to begin with? Always interesting to read how many of the prominent marxists were from the middle class.
The 'relationship of production' is linked to how businesses operate, though. The two are connected in certain ways.
Slavery was a business, but not all business is slavery. Fallacy of association, careful.
That was a rhetorical point. I am asserting that prior to any marketing, your item is worthless. Went right over your head.
Then the predetermined value he had set was a guesstimation, at best. Quickly revised when market forces are calculated for.
One is an issue of voluntarism.
Nobody forced you to sign anything.
The other is your assessment of how mean you think businesses are.

Tell them that unionizing will rid them oftheir hellish jobs because management will fire them all

That is your opinion. You are free to do whatever you please with your own business.
The 'economy' is set up that way because people value profit in order to trade. Profit has always existed whenever people trade things and gain more after the trade. It used to be barter and the gain was subjective. But currency exists now and there is literally nothing you can ever do about it. So long as currency exists, the gain will not be subjective, it will be objective compared to the currency's status on a market. There is literally nothing you can do about this. Literally every time it was attempted to destroy currency, it has failed because the global market will continue to live in a civilized world with currency as a unit of exchange and not some black market barter system (by the way, banning or limiting these business practices you hate so much will only cause a black market). You have to have a global revolution to devolve all nations back before currencies existed. This is something that I have seen no evidence to even remotely suggest is a possibility.
Appeal to motivation, asking personal questions is useless to debate.
You literally said "No, not necessarily, since commodities sell above and below value all the time." even though I stated that it was a perception. You directly inferred from my statement that I meant to say goods cannot be sold above/below value points, even though I mentioned that the perception is what matters, which is circumstantial.
Presupposing the conclusion before actually determining the evidence to prove exploitation when the entire concept is dependent upon the conscious mind of the worker in question. Workers who are not exploited rebuke this infantile notion, but the response is always a patronizing, soapbox routine of 'you just can't see your chains haha'.
He will soon learn that the prediction he made is useless as he is dependent on the consumer-base's response.
There is no surplus, people don't sell shit for free. People like to make a profit, it isn't an extraction if that is what is being sold.
If it's his apple, he can jack the price up as much as he wants. That just means that I can start up an apple company with a loan and take over his consumer-base because nobody wants apples that cost much more than I am selling them for.
Which is your opinion. You are free to not associate/continue the relationship. You can live off the land, as many people do. Grow your own shit and never sell anything to gain a profit. Unfortunately for you, civilization has evolved and pathological altruism/favour-based economies always fail, so you will have to find remote forest locations. Just live like the primitive communist man everyone loves to compare. Kind of hypocritical that you always point to "da primitive man" and the living conditions without profit or private property (which is wrong as property still existed and the delineation between property you like/dislike was irrelevant/just an opinion), yet nobody ever wants to emulate that behaviour: always want to live in civilization but emulate archaic and defunct methods of existence, eh?

When they have their own businesses, then their opinions of how hard they think they work will be relevant. If you want a promotion, talk to your boss, don't make up stories about what you think you deserve without actually improving your skills. If you are actually skilled, you will get a raise. That's what a meritocracy is. Capitalism is meritocratic so long as people are left to their own devices to compete. That's why the inferior fail and starve, and the superior succeed and eat. Survival of the fittest.
But it is not a commodity. Your quote agrees with my stance on commodities. The 'supremacy of the consumers' is just a market force of demand. It will still exist, even if you think destroying currency or absolving any surplus extraction will be beneficial. This is how civilizations have evolved, and they have done so for a reason: because exchange relies on currency, and the benefit from trades also relies on risk, to name one factor, that is behind profit.
The only thing that matters is what actually 'is'.

Haven't seen that demonstrated, but it is kind of hard to weed through the hyperbole. Maybe I missed it.
Yeah, society influence the market place. Markets don't exist in bubbles.

I didn't say it did. Circumstance does still determine how capitalism turns profit, and so much of it hinges on that.
I don't remembering entering a discussion about this, so I don't know how I would dismiss it.
"If" is the key word here. The only way to compete in the market is for productivity to match competition. To do this, they often have to find people to work under them. Even in an ideal capitalist world where everyone could join the market as a capitalist, the whole experiment would crumble in a day because there would be no laborers. Essentially, someone is always going to be left to be the prole, and then their options are work or die. But on some level you're right. If circumstances permit, you can start a business.
I never made this argument, so I don't know why I'm supposed to be responding to it. You're taking the particular and making it the whole, but I agree that animals also have to work to subsist. I don't think you'll find someone here that doesn't disagree with such a broad general statement.
The point was that humans can and have existed without it. It's not "gravity", as you put it. Kind of hypocritical trying to point out a false analogy on your end, given the circumstances. If you want to argue about civilational development, that's another matter.
I think it's odd that the right is always trying to check people's workers privilege.
Which we can do through equilibrium prices.
That capitalist should if he wants to make a profit
That still doesn't mean that business begins and end when those relations of production end.
I have no idea how you extrapolated that from what I said.
Bad point, since it doesn't matter whether the item is worthless or not, the capitalist acts as if it isn't.
you're starting to figure it out. Either way, the capitalist is to meet the goal of extracting profit.
Sure, and we want to voluntarily take over the means of production. Quit being spooked by voluntarism.
Not sure what this has to do with what I said. I was concerned with prevalence of this type of contract and wanting to make it so it didn't exist in the first place.
I hate repeating myself, but it's because it's not in my interest. I voluntarily chose to side with communism instead. Some business men are actually nice people who just don't realize what they do.

Never said I wasn't.
If I were to start a business it would a workers collective, and the best way for that to succeed is under communism.
Could institute labor vouchers, actually.
Or they were crushed by outside forces. But yeah, communism has to happen globally. It can't be in just one state.

We have that under capitalism, though.
I really don't care what your motivations are. I just want to know why you think labor can't be a commodity, when capitalist have been saying this for a while now going back to Ricardo.
Didn't realize we were having a debate. I thought this was a discussion.
Yes, because "even if you perceive the value as higher, you may price it lower to compete."
Yeah, he though he didn't like what happened to the workers, but that's not the basis of his analysis. The internal contradictions that he found were why he thought it must end.
It's actually dependent on surplus value and profit
Marx never denied there were proles that wouldn't find communism in their interest.
I don't see how we're disagreeing here.
Cool story, I guess. Not seeing where you're going with it.
It's my opinion that it's not in my interest?
I'm pretty it's definitely not in my interest.
I'm not, actually.


Have no problem with merit, but capitalism hasn't proven its merit to me.
I don't really buy into all the appeals to nature thing.
Not really. You forgot the first part.


Fucking lel

This is the cancer that is killing Holla Forums. Someone please get this faggot outta here!!

One would think that with so many public soothings in the US would someone fired from Walmart try to go shoot some owner or CEO

Americans love there capitalist overlords/job creators

Repeal the Taft-Heartley act and do industry wide strikes. They show anti Union propaganda weekly at their meetings n shit. My father was working as a laborer on one of our local ballmart and workers were asking him if he was in a union and how they could potentially organize.