People shouldn't be given rights because of who they are, they should earn muh privileges from what they do...

People shouldn't be given rights because of who they are, they should earn muh privileges from what they do. You leftist SJWs have it all backwards.

>>>Holla Forums

8====D

I'm banned from there.


That your lollipop? Why don't you keep sucking it?

Who determines who gets what muh privileges and for what reasons?

Reevaluate your life fam.

please.


Spooks. A right is a hierarchical concept. A right is the slave owner promising to not do certain things. The right to free speech is a promise that the government wont kill you. The right to vote is a promise that the government won't exclude people based on if they want to.

And so on, sniff.

Easy. Everyone should be born into slavery, regardless of their parents' current social status, and work their way from the bottom based on the rule of an infallible leader, who also worked from the bottom.

Fixed.

capitalism does not resemble anything close to a meritocratic system.

which by the way is a spook.

I fucking hate capitalism. It lets people have the illusion of rights. People shouldn't even have that.

...

Literally does not exist.

Not really. Saying that the worker has a right to the fruit of his labor isn't a hierachal concept. The hierachal concept is that the capitalist has a right to the fruit of someone else's labor based on his ownership of private property.

Except when they worked from the bottom in a country of slaves.

Yes, that's what I said, care to go on?

not even then, there are many shit-tier African leaders who were born with nothing.

Only I'm right.

...

I'm talking to everyone here that's not in on the joke yet.

What joke?

;)

Cut that shit out, I'm not joking.

Rights are just the arranged commodations slave masters make for their slaves.

That's why they shouldn't exist.

I never understood this logic, but maybe that's my 21st century brain trying to understand a concept coined over 100 years ago.

If I offer someone goods and/or services and/or money in exchange for the same, and we both agree to it, how is this bad? The common understanding is that we're both trying to get as much value out of the transaction as possible.

You only get exploitative stuff when one party thinks the other is somehow giving them a gift or when the value by one party is, in hindsight a bad deal. Such as when someone's immediate wants overturn their long-term benefits - IE getting that mcdonalds cheeseburger on the way home from work for 2$, and then later finding out they cost like 25cents to make when in a mental state where you're not exhausted enough to be willing to pay $1.75 to not have to cook.

In other words, if I do work for someone else, we are both agreeing to the terms of the job contracts. If I have someone do work for me, the same applies. If I were to want to hire Stephen Hawking to speak at an event, the ball is in his court because he has something I do not (his knowledge and experience), he is unique, and thus has more clout in the transaction. Despite me owning the property where such an event would be held, the money to handle most of the other things that go into running it, and the idea to use capitalism to create something by having other people work for me… I'm at the mercy of at least one (Mr. Hawking) worker's desire to accept, counter, or simply decline my offer.

It almost seems like this concept of workers being powerless unless they mob up was created in a time before even basic labor laws, when you had very little service economy, and when education & skills were out of reach for most people.

Or in other words, why do Commies put so much emphasis on the parts of Communism that no longer apply?

...

It can work both ways.
Apple, etc. "exploit" factory workers through the jobs being extremely low skill and thus the most desperate - AKA willing to work for the least because they want to work at all - drive the job market there.
Highly skilled individuals can "exploit" capitalists' need for them by simple virtue of being in short supply and thus the best deals go to the smartest and most skilled workers.

It's simple supply and demand, and comes down to which party is more desperate than the other for the pay or work.

There are enough people who would take a low-paying job at McDonalds to keep wages low.
There are enough people who would want to hire Hans Zimmer to keep his wages high.

If you're an unskilled sack of shit then of course you're paid like an unskilled sack of shit (or not have a job because an equally-unskilled sack of shit will complain less). Get some skills and education. The internet is right there, you don't even have to go to the library, much less university to learn things and build a portfolio.

Right, you should have to earn property, it shouldn't be inherited.

Also people shouldn't be allowed guns until they pass a test.

Also no free speech until you can prove you aren't going to offend me with it.

Ain't that right fellas

So? Your assumption is that because they worked their way up they'd be infallible? Lots of people have built empires from nothing and did so through lies, murder, thuggery, etc. There's nothing stopping them from being corrupt selfish pieces of shit.

You retards call us cucks (and still think we're /tumblr/ because you never leave your hug box) but this is the most cucked thing I have ever heard, you are literally the most beta a person can be.

This is disproven by just how low employment rates are for people coming out of university. Especially older people who need a job, even if you're extremely skilled it's almost impossible.

To the first post: If Stephen Hawking were getting paid I imagine whoever is selling tickets would be selling tickets in order so that he can make his money back plus surplus value(get more money than he put in), in which case yes Stephen Hawking would be getting exploited though it probably wouldn't bother him. If it was a non-profit event then the person hiring him wouldn't be a capitalist.

Exploitation happens to everyone unless they own land. It does not matter what your skill level is.

HAHAHAHAHAHA NICE SPOOKS NERD

and by land I mean private property*
It's pretty basic economics boi. The capitalist is paying someone less than their work is worth, otherwise there is no surplus value created.

I agree. Nikola Tesla was really stupid, believed in being charitable to humanity with the concept of free energy, and deserved to die poor.

We need to reward people who look only after themselves and use all their intelligence and skills towards that goal. We need to punish people who seek to help others and use all their intelligence and skills towards improving all people's lives.

How do you determine the value of something other than by how much someone is willing to exchange for it? And why is the laborer accepting less than his labor is worth?

Marxist use the LTV. It's the most scientific approach you can take regarding value. It looks at whats commonly transferred a commodity between all commodities, that being human labour in the abstract. Skilled labour can be measured as a multitude of unskilled labour, so it isn't considered to be it's own type of labour. You can take factors, like training as a part of the labour it takes to produce a commodity.

So basically the labourer might perform $70 worth if labour and the manager might perform $120 worth of labour. We call it exploitation when the worker gets $10 and the manager gets $180 an hour.

Degree-level positions are not unskilled labor. Thus you have the duality of wanting the best work at the cheapest level as there are ways things can get fucked up more than just "the patty fell off the griddle."

Large amounts of people coming out of university means employers can be pickier about who they hire. A huge uptick in the amount of people with degrees, especially in certain fields, without a significant portion of them or people who work in companies leaving to start their own businesses leads to unemployment. Recent grads with portfolios as well as degrees do better than those with degrees alone.

Again, supply and demand. The supply of workers in these fields is too high for the demand of who's needed, thus like someone picking fruit at the market those with the least blemishes get picked.

Older people should be starting their own businesses with the skills and experience they should have from being older. If someone worked in a business for 10 years and didn't learn anything they could apply after then they fucked up.


Stephen Hawking doesn't have to front up the money to buy or rent the venue, sell tickets, advertise, hire security, etc etc. The capitalist makes money off the venue, and if Mr Hawking were offered pay at less than what he considered to be his fair share then he would be able to just walk away from the deal. Figuratively, of course.

That is how every transaction works. If you borrow a cup of sugar from your neighbor he'll expect you to not just give him a cup of sugar back but also be grateful. The gratefulness is surplus value (albeit a very small one).


Nikola Tesla… if I remember right he was bad with money and got some shit advice and deals which led to Edison walking all over him. You might as well ask why HP Lovecraft died early. Or why Charles Babbage never got his mechanical computers set up. Or why any number of other otherwise brilliant people got the short end.

They all make some shit life choices or bad deals. But I've known plenty of people who were/are brilliant in certain areas but absolutely shit in others (financial, social, and so on) and so end up dying on a couch despite having tons of qualifications.

Exactly.

One reason the laborer accepts less than he's worth in the wider world is because relative to what else he'd be doing in the local realm he's getting better deal.

For an extreme example of this: See how ISIS is offering farmers like 300$ a year in pay (I forget the exact number) which is several times that of other militant groups, and several times more money than subsistence farming would bring.

Another example would be simple ignorance. As I said before, a McDonalds burger is something like 25 cents to make (very thin, easily preserved patty and easily preserved artificially-leavened bun) but costs several times that when purchasing one. It's far more efficient for someone to simply make their own burgers, as the time and energy costs balance out with the health gains and money saving. And occasionally time costs cancel out if there's a long line at the restaurant or it's out of the way, plus transportation.

Most people seem to simply be focusing around the here-and-now instead of considering their future. The latter is what self-made rich people do for most actions.

MAXIMUM SPOOK

Why should you be grateful that someone is paying you less than you're worth so that you don't have to starve to death? The system is set up in such a way that there is no choice here.

You're completely ignorant, older people who worked their whole lives can get fucked over in a market crash and many of them did. I know older people who owned their house and were retired who are now living in a trailer park because of health care bills.


Which is why Socialism eliminates the "I need to accept less than I'm worth or I'll starve to death" system. We don't care if "in the current system, it's a good deal." we want to change the fundamentals of the system.

The point with Nikola Tesla is that capitalism does not reward people based on contribution to society, and claiming otherwise is false.

This post is so edgy

To riff on the older people thing - my parents owned a business and worked their way up. My dad had to go back to school to get a teaching degree when he's a 60 year old diabetic so that we can stay afloat, while my mom has a lot of trouble finding work in her field because people want to hire younger people that will work for less.

There is massive ageism in many industries. Also, what kind of life is one where you work till you die? I thought that was called slavery.

This all happen because my mom lost her jobs following the 2008 financial crash and we had to live off our savings for a few years.

We're also 10's of thousands of dollars in debt despite doing everything in the capitalist montra. We were fucked over by the system.


Exactly you can be qualified and not have a job. The fact that any time there's only X fields where you can go into and survive shows how capitalism crushes the creative spirit in everyone.

A debunked value theory. Roundly debunked.

How? The accusations about it being logically incorrect are based on misunderstandings. Using the TSSI to model is as a single system fixes any accusations about it being incorrect in of itself. You can object to it fundamentally, but it is not internally inconsistent.

For example critics will say:

And use the to debunk it, based on a misunderstanding. Supply and demand is an aspect of the LTV, and Marx says this in capital.

You aren't "offering" anything. Someone owns everything you need to live and if you don't do what they say when they say it they'll let you die. They didn't do anything to earn this fantastic wealth. It was either already there in the form of natural resources or they got it by exploiting the hard work of others, or just straight up force or the threat of it.

So you aren't giving the capitalist anything, and in their view everything you make belongs to them to do with what they will, and in exchange they will pay you a minuscule fraction of the value that you produced for them that they did nothing to earn.

And in fact, you're only in this situation because this capitalist or others like him swindled or otherwise ran your ancestors off of their land. Before the enclosure of the commons you might have been able to say you had a choice between working for a capitalist or not, but they decided they needed the land more than your family did and took it from them.

Critics will say value is subjective, and keep it at that. The value is whatever another person would give you for it.

Misusing my example there. The example was simply that there's surplus created in every transaction. This surplus need not be material, and in fact is part of the basis of the close bonds of human interaction.

Health care is another can of worms that can be fixed but not without a lot of pain. Basically doctor costs are so high because of guaranteed payment - AKA insurance. But that's a specific problem in today's society and not necessarily intrinsic to capitalism. (As in, you can have health-insurance-less captialism.)

And many of them didn't. Those who were smart about it did not and are fine.


It's more the "everyone gets surplus from every transaction so everyone has gains over time" system.


Capitalism doesn't reward people. People reward people. You can have the greatest idea in the world but you need to actually participate in society and deal with other human beings to get it realized.


Nice anecdotes.

There's also massive respect for those in their field who are older and wiser. (Though that seems to be degrading over time due to those fucking people who blame baby boomers for all their problems.)


A life where you neglected to save any money for your retirement or simply never wish to retire? Or one where you die early due to making trash choices.


In order to get into debt you have to have collateral and agree to pay the debt. If you're over 30 grand in debt then what the hell did you spend 30 grand on that it isn't producing enough to pay it off?


No, it shows how you have to be creative to succeed.


Time is the most valuable resource in the world as it's non-renewable and is needed for literally everything. If I'm sitting there flipping burgers I'm doing it so the owner can handle other things, providing extra hands to multitask so that things get done faster.

Work is, in its most basic form, time combined with skills and knowledge. A movie producer doesn't have to necessarily know the intricacies of sound production, lighting, the finer bits of makeup and costume design, CGI, and crying on command. If he did, he'd make his first movie when he was in his 60s. The capitalist is the organizer - the ideas guy. The "leader" in some contexts (though he may delegate that as well to someone else.) He's paying for other people to perform work so that he doesn't have to, and gaining some benefit from said work being done.

People are not born into the world like a naked caveman in Rust or some shit. You have connections from growing up and from family. If you fucked them up, or if your family were garbage then you have always the ability to make new ones. (ESPECIALLY in today's age with the internet.)

When you work for someone, you get paid. Then you pay someone else to do work for you. This compounds, and it compounds even better if you're smart about it.

Also there's nothing gating anyone from becoming a capitalist besides money and knowledge, especially nowadays with the advent of things like kickstarter, patreon, self-publishing services, 3D printing, and so on.

holy shit you're a retard

Got a better response than that?