Workers built the means of production, it belongs to them

Person pays contractor X amount of money to build house. Contractor pays worker Y amount of money for their labour. The difference between these amounts are the surplus the contractor extracts from the workers.

Well, he would have extracted surplus value from their efforts if he had not paid them the full value of their labor.

Your house belongs to you, because you use it. The factory belongs to the workers, because they use it.

any books you might recommend about "surplus value"?

I mean, I see why accumulating money would obviously bring vantages to someone in the market, that's pretty obvious, and accumulating that money through other people's work sounds so kind of unstable to happen in a large global scale, how can a government regulate surplus value, and give it back to the workers? would that solve anything?

Das Kapital by Marx

That's an odd way of saying welfare capitalism and it's still exploitative.

Government shouldn't regulate, the workers should

also, how does the bourgeoisie defend themselves when someone bring to the table "surplus value" on an argument? I mean, if it's a fact, how do they react to that?

It's not related to markets, it's related to the process of production and labour itself. This article is pretty good for how to get out of that line of thinking:

thecharnelhouse.org/2013/01/30/on-communism-and-markets-a-reply-to-seth-ackerman-by-matthijs-krul/

They claim that they have a right to the surplus value because they put up the capital to start their business/factory/whatever.
Which is a fallacy anyway because capital is built on exploitation in the first place.

In capitalism you have to sell commodities to be able to survive. Since most people can't produce commodities on their own, they have to turn part of themselves into commodites. So workers sell their labour to the bourgeoisie. But they cannot sell actual work, or the product of their work, only abstract labour (time, a part of their lives). They are paid for it less than the worth of the actual work done, and the difference is the surplus (or profit).

This also means that the time you spend at work literally belongs to the bourgeoisie. This is called alienation. Labour as a commodity also leads to a strange asymmetry: despite it being available on the market, the individual worker can't buy back the time spent at work.

just watched some videos of anarcho-capitalists trying to refute the marxist surplus value theory

well, they didn't refute the theory at all, all of them recognized the fact that the capitalist takes an amount of money of the workers, and keeps it to himself

they just don't call it exploitation, they're deluded enough to say it's better to exploit workers in order to them not starve

holy shit, that's the only thing I needed: the surplus value is a fact

how can this problem be solved?

Read stuff
also why are you using the lolbert flag

former lolbert

Abolish the private ownership of the means of production.

How to fix? Gommernisms

Take the boss out of the equation. The workers do not need him in order to produce commodities. They are capable of performing his functions on their own.

This.

I mean, yes, they're obviously capable, but who will lead them? people obviously can't distribute the things they create for themselves

existentialcomics.com/philosopher/Karl_Kautsky

No one

The people that distribute are workers aswell

how can stuff be redistributed without someone planning it? the only way I know it is: the market, but then we go back to our original surplus value problem

You can have a market without private property.

Planning =/= leading

If the workers democratically run the factories, there is no surplus extraction

fair enough

how would that work?

I'll give you an irl example
Debian is run fairly democratically, here's how it works
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian#Organization

We have 100 different movements with their own ideas for how to manage socialism. From anarchism to sovjet style central planning.

how does closed-source codes (like the ones developed by Micro$oft) enter into the leftist POV? are they comparable with private property?

"Intellectual property is stupid and gay" - Garl Margs

I think that he is talking about the organization, not the software.

It is not the "Lolbert" flag.

It was a flag used by American revolutionaries against British imperialist rule.

"Don't Tread on Me" meant fighting against tyrants and foreign rulers, not muh individualism.

lol who cares

Meh, just annoys me that lolberts have taken the flag for themselves.

Same thing happened to the Fasces.

Labor is entitled to all that it creates, but the means of production don't belong to them because the workers physically built them, but because they are only possible through the communal effort of many individuals utilizing materials that are the birthright of every individual on the planet.

If people can't think for themselves, how are markets rational?
Check mate lolberts

...

That's a new one.

It was used by a bunch of land speculators who wanted to run the Injuns out of Pennsylvania.

jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/

The consistency and tenor of the results will surprise many readers. I was, and am, surprised at the nature of these results. And given their inconsistency with received doctrines, there is a tendency to dismiss them on methodological grounds. However, such dismissal becomes increasingly hard when faced with a cumulation of consistent results from a variety of sources.

That's crony capitalism

Even if you're just joking, I'm still triggered.

It literally says
>But in the bulk of the West German economy — which was then being hailed globally as Modell Deutschland — monopolies, taxes, subsidies, and so on actually left its price structure further from the “efficient” optimum
It's not actual capitalism, which is just voluntary exchange.

#triggered

brb killing myself

━━━━━┓⌒ζ
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃ DO
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃ IT
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃ FAGGOT
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

first, the building of your house is not the effort of the worker who did, but a collective effort by multiple members of the working class who turned all those raw materials into bricks and shit, and so on and so on…
so the building of everything is the product of the collective labor of many members of the proletariat.
SO, your home shouldnt be owned by one individual who helped the its construction, but to the working people in general!

2. your house isnt a mean of production, as other people said. but the MoP should belong to everyone (and it actually used to one day, until something called primitive accumulation happened)

oh wow guys we were so bent out of shape about exploitation of wage labor but actually capitalism is a gift economy!
Read Capital, you have no excuse

If they just randomly built a house, then yeah. isn't that the libertarian dream?

But houses aren't a means of production

This picture explains it pretty well.
Someone democratically elected by the workers themselves for the day-to-day decisions and a majority vote on the big decisions, pretty much.
That's Socialism, Communism happens on a larger scale and with a change on society's priorities (post-scarcity).

Quality thread you guys

Threads tend to be nice when they're on topic and Checkers doesn't find them.

dank

I disagree. You can make the case that bosses are overpaid but they don't do nothing. RE building a house, the boss is usually the guys who puts up some of his own money to get the ball rolling. He orders stocks as required, is responsible for health and safety enforcement, will generally work overtime ensuring that all shit goes smoothly. Not everybody wants this responsibility. Say we woke up tomorrow and the world had changed, all bosses stepped down and their workers owned everything, do you honestly think every single worker would want to take on the extra responsibility of customer relations, chasing and settling bills, investing? Like it or not somebody has to do this shit. You could argue that the role I've described is the managerial role, not the owner but either way said role is required. And because ultimately the boss is held accountable should the project get fucked up, is it not fair that they are rewarded more?

I think you're a little confused here.
"Bosses" does not mean "administrators".

The "Bosses" are the shareholders.

Worker-Democracy works great though.

Mondragon runs on those principles and they have 70.000 employees.

Could the same not be said about kings and nobles?

this. learn the definition of "means of production" you tard.

jesus, with more people we just have more retards. i miss when we had 300 ppl

Don't get me wrong, I've no love for shareholders. But as long as money is a thing, companies will need startup monies. And my point remains, I don't think everyone would necessarily want to be involved in the administration side of it.

And do they have a management structure or is every decision taken solely by vote?

...

Sure.
That can be fixed through mutualist banks/credit Unions. No need for exploitation at all.

The have a managment on everything they feel is undiplomatic to control either through democratic vote of individual initiative. However all such management is elected and instituted by the workers themselves.

Wew, this problem fixed itself pretty quickly.

But money is still a thing user. How get rid of money?

Being a manager and being a capitalist are not the same thing.

Workers give the bourg more value that he pays them as wages.

what the fuck are you babbling about you meme loving faggot

…what?