Right now, a lot of companies (Such as Tesla and Uber) don’t make profits and actually produce negative earnings, but they are afloat because of venture investments.
Given Marxist logic, should the workers have to make negative wages and pay the company when profits aren’t positive?
yes, when a company makes a loss the workers actually become the exploiters as they are being paid more for their work than it's worth
I like the whole Pinochet worship shows that ancaps don't even value the premise of their whole morality.
Try harder if you're going to b8.
What is there to try harder for? He asked a fair question that can be given an answer, "hurr b8" is not an answer, only a deflection tactic.
The people who own and run the companies still end up rich while the workers don't and end up being treated like shit. These companies manage to survive through financial trickery, promising rapid growth and market expansion that will totally pay off eventually, they promise. It's actually the perfect example of the insanity that is the stock market. According to Marxists financial/capital inanity like this is something that humanity should do away with.
What of a company going bankrupt and leaving its owner penniless? They don't end up rich, they end up broke and in tremendous debt for trying to create a business and failing eventually. I agree with you that large corporations are vicious and seek only to wring their workers dry and cast them away in lieu of replacements but that is a symptom of the larger problem, not the cause, and I see no means by which the alternative alleviates this. I had close relatives killed and imprisoned following the Bolshevik revolution and lost everything (despite being very successful prior to the communist takeover) - all I see from these systems is an even worse imbalance between the haves and the have nots and even more ease of exploitation. At least with capitalism there is a "potential" for things to be made right, in communism there is literally nothing, those who desire to exploit the masses for their own selfish personal gain will do so and the people crushed under foot have no recourse whatsoever.
Don't get me wrong, I see the charm in a system of effective autonomy, where each part is made to be malleable and the people are able to become sharpened and honed specialized tools in the fields of their interest but in order to sustain such a system there would need to be a grave and serious external threat or something of that nature, and once that threat/external factor dissipates the society will fall to chaos as minor imbalances amplified by the nature of people to be greedy and desire more for "their own" absolutely tear the society asunder. It's just not possible, and the results are far worse.
I'll bite. The worker isn't exploiting Tesla, this is still a classic case of surplus value. They are still making more value than they are paid for, the choices for how those profits are spent/the unprofitability of the business doesn't suddenly make the worker the owner of his work, or someone extracting surplus value. Jesus Christ I can't aging someone actually thinking this was a smart post.
wew, this is the ancap thread in the row. Are the ancap this butthurt now.
The owner is still an exploiter, he’s just really bad at it. If I try to mug somebody and they beat the shit out of me and take MY wallet then it doesn’t make me less of scumbag.
Workers are literally helping deepen the red numbers of a company by getting value above what it produces. Literally what value is there to extract when the company is in the negative.
called capitalism, glad you agree imagine my shock i mean, if he fought for the other side he cant complain that he got btfo'd. to further expand on that, a lot of leftists are against the concetration of power into the bureaucracy that happened into the soviet union, me included. a lot of us don't see it as necessary and see it as a (to quote trotsky) "revolution betrayed". how were things made right under capitalism? because the capitalist decided to be nice or because the workers organized and pushed back? 20% literacy, literal feudalism, peasantry living in mudhuts vs guaranteed education, housing and employment for all
truly more imbalanced, if were using your soviet union example.
either way to answer your question, capitalism just isn't sustainable. It might work on paper, but it just won't work out in the long run, as can be seen nowadays with the disappearing working class and the falling rate of profit. the people being take out of poverty is literally banks moving the goalposts.
I think you need to read leftist critique of the Soviet Union, and see how aspects ofstalinism arent necessarily always crucial to socialism as an idea.
to add on to that, how can you expect a system built on infinite expansion to not collapse in a finite planet/universe? this is literally how capitalism functions.
So by your definition how does one not exploit and still be able to bring about meaningful progress necessitating large amounts of resources? So far I am wholly unconvinced that there is any solution whatsoever within the system you advocate.
I am being very patient as it was at least an interesting premise I saw from the index, I'd normally never visit this board. I am curious where you all stand and whether or not any of your arguments hold weight, I want to have a rational discussion to learn and understand.
That isn't necessarily how capitalism functions - like the case of the Soviet Union where initially the plan was a dissolving of the government which was subverted by 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 (like it or not these are the facts, literally 95% of the eventual ruling class were 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 which destroyed your ideal system in the name of selfish gains)
That said, likewise to the Soviet Union Capitalism has also been subverted to create this infinite perpetual treadmill, also 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 in the form of the Federal Reserve fiat currency system wherein debt is paid upon currency that is literally impossible to pay back which necessitates the continual exploitation of "untapped resources" meaning nations and peoples to be drained of their wealth both literal and figurative, infinite growth is impossible and is only a "requirement" of capitalism because 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 subverted the system of finance creating a constant need for exploitative and destructive practices.
The root cause is the same, both systems might work in a vacuum but 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 will always do all that is in their power to subvert and destroy for their own selfish gain, as is the nature of the 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧.
Damn those anglos
Where do you thing extracted value comes from? It doesn't come from the companies profits already had. Imagine for a moment if this is how it worked, no surplus value cold be had because the value hadnt been made yet. Truly a funny take. Anyways, it doesn't matter that the company is in the red. They are producing a certain amount of value for the company, they are paid less than that value, and then the surplus value is being spent, putting the company in the red. What is there not to understand here, other than your ignorance of surplus value?? Now admittedly I am being mocking here, but how could surplus value be taken out of a negative value if it did exist? Like the worker is now the Capitalist, and by witchcraft has bonded the Capitalist to pay him when it doesn't give him any value? How can the Capitalist be said to be exploited in any way?! Ahh, wait, I see your an cap genius shining through. This is truly the model of exploitation under the conditions of the DDOTP, and actually models the proletarian DEEP state secretly exploiting the Capitalists for value. What is this new model to be called, other than the obvious change to Deep Dictatorship of the Proletariat? To think the next breakthrough in praxis would come from an ancap, the end times are upon us.
The workers didn't make the promise to the shareholders or investors that one day it will pay off, the owner did. If it doesn't work out, your workers don't owe you shit.
Amazon didn't make a profit for several years. Money has to be paid regardless of profits, trickle down economics don't real If the companies fail then it is the will of the Market Praise Smith
communist / socialist nations
comrade Molyneux is correct, the free market is like getting cucked multiple times by various people. That's why i propose that we create the ultimate monopoly and nationalize the entire world economy.
1.) As others already pointed out. Obviously not since capital was invested in order to exploit the workers. So why should they now feel any obligation to help the capitalist out?
2.) If we interpret the issue through an LTV lens than workers can still be exploited even while the company doesn't make any or even negative profit. Only value directly depends on work, not price. The exploitation happens within the productive phase of capital, if the resulting commodity sells below its value it doesn't erase what happened during the production process (value of the produced commodities- value of wages < 0) . It simply means that the capitalist wasn't able to realize his surplus, not that surplus was non-existent.