Why do you want to redistribute my wealth?

Humor me for a bit here while I make introductions.

My parents were both born to working poor families and worked their way out of poverty. After getting drafted into Vietnam my dad worked a series of blue collar jobs that allowed him to invest and save for retirement. My mother got her degree through Pell Grants and worked as a teacher for decades. They both saved and invested for years to own a nice house, a retirement portfolio, and are looking at opening up a bakery. They might hire a few younger people to help them run it.

In turn, I have worked hard. I spent my late teens and twenties working at a factory. The factory that I work at is one of the better paying jobs in the area, but not on the same level as if it were unionized, which I acknowledge as a problem. This factory always has openings. They are always hiring. They always need people and will take basically anyone trainable. Every week I go the gym and see people at the unemployment office in the same building coming by to explain how they can't seem to get a job. I constantly hear from people working in jobs that are low-paying but less demanding of them that they wish they could make more money. When I point out that the factory is hiring and that the work is full-time with benefits and good pay they shut up. I have never had anyone follow through and walk-in to interview.

After saving for the better part of a decade I'm getting ready to start a farm. I'm buying up ten acres of land around a house I'm having built and planting mullberry trees where there aren't any. I'm going to be bee-keeping there. What I hope to produce is:
-silk (silkworms eat mulberry leaves)
-mulberry wine (harvested from the same trees)
-mead (from honey from my hives)
-royal jelly (from those same hives)

If I am successful enough at running it I will hire laborers to help me after I've built up productivity enough. This, to you, makes me a Capitalist. It makes my parents Capitalists. You would, if I'm understanding your rhetoric correctly, distribute all of our savings and investments to people who have not worked as hard as we have or been as frugal in the name of "equality".

Why do you think that's right to do?

yoroshiku onegaishimasu

we don't, we want to seize the means of production.
Also, let me save you some trouble: your farm idea is shit, and it won't work. You won't make a lot of money off of it, and if you hire some peasant workers, you'll have to brutally exploit them and pay them dogshit wages in order to skim a profit.

sage for classcucked ideology

No one wants to do this, what makes you think we do?

Right, so my land, my parents' business, and the businesses represented by their stocks.

Don't you want to collectivize farming?

In our opinion you're exploiting the labor of people who produce money for you by absorbing the revenue for yourself and then redistributing it as you please. Make it a cooperative with people you trust (or even just coworkers) and you're good.

The portforlio would make them petit bourgeois at best because i doubt they have actual control on the companie's they have shares in.


If the means of production are seized, your're not neccessary excluded, but the weight of your voice on how the farm is run is only worth the value of your work and ideas, not the amount of capital you bring. If you made your business thrive, if you were acting as a leader and not a boss, it's unlikely your workers (now coworkers) are throwing you under the bus.

Also no, collectivization in general is a horrible idea. At least the way the Soviets did it, forced.

Why do you think murder and violence are justified by soul bonding with objects?

Also, you don't own money. The money is the proper of government Corp tm. Your just renting the money, check the terms and conditions.

Why would I do that? They didn't work for decades to save up the money to do this, I did.


Irrelevant, you would still redistribute the fruits of their labor.


So my previous hard work and frugality should be for naught?

only if you're not using it, or you're hiring workers on it. it would become a co-op in my personal flavor of socialism.

If it's just a small bakery and they're the only workers, it's irrelevant. If they hire a few workers, then they have to have a fair say in running/owning the business. pretty simple.

hell yeah. What's the point of owning those stocks anyway? Retirement, right? Well that's covered by society in socialism. Your parents probably made retarded investments anyway, and they'll break even at best.

They already are for naught. You haven't accomplished anything other than a slightly more secure survival.

" Even when a man without fortune receives credit in his capacity of industrialist or merchant, it occurs with the expectation that he will function as capitalist and appropriate unpaid labour with the borrowed capital. He receives credit in his capacity of potential capitalist. The circumstance that a man without fortune but possessing energy, solidity, ability and business acumen may become a capitalist in this manner – and the commercial value of each individual is pretty accurately estimated under the capitalist mode of production – is greatly admired by apologists of the capitalist system. Although this circumstance continually brings an unwelcome number of new soldiers of fortune into the field and into competition with the already existing individual capitalists, it also reinforces the supremacy of capital itself, expands its base and enables it to recruit ever new forces for itself out of the substratum of society. In a similar way, the circumstance that the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages formed its hierarchy out of the best brains in the land, regardless of their estate, birth or fortune, was one of the principal means of consolidating ecclesiastical rule and suppressing the laity. The more a ruling class is able to assimilate the foremost minds of a ruled class, the more stable and dangerous becomes its rule. "

Karl Marx, Capital vol. III

Why do the workers deserve an equal slice of what I saved from my own labors to produce?


Again, why? The workers didn't save to make it happen. It isn't the fruits of their past labor.


They already have penchants as well.


lolnoharmnofoulamirite?


I'm purchasing a house and property. I own other property outright. I have security. I worked for all of it.

We don't.

You can keep your mulberry farm and as long as you're the only one working it, then whatever you do with it is your business.

But when you "hire laborers" you're exploiting others for profit just because you had more fantasy porky tokens than them.

After all, if you're entitled to all of your (and your parents' apparently) "hard work," then why shouldn't these laborers be entitled to theirs? Instead you hire them, take everything they make, and then give them back a small portion.

So they deserve an equal share of the fruits of my labor? So if we work together outside on land I bought I should be required to split the money with them equally in spite of my prior hard work making all of this possible?

That's mere rhetoric designed to avoid the central question by reframing the situation with faulty logic.

Your 'wealth' is paltry and posters here with brains don't give a shit about it.

You have no right to exploit workers just because you were exploited yourself, fuckface.

so the solution is to just NOT hire them? they end up starving and dying because they don't have jobs and can't afford food

how is it exploiting workers if they are paid for their labor and time

Because they're making the bread?

They're the ones making it happen right now. Why would your past labor devaluate current labor?

You mean retirement by repartition? What does this word means not natie english speaker here.

What you actually should is relinquish businesses that you own and give them to the workers, I.E. worker coops. That's a start. You could also buy from them once in a while.

kulak

That's not our fault, that's the fault of capitalism. That's how it works right now, and it's what we want to fix.

Selling ones labor and in exchange receiving a wage compensation which is necessarily less than what value they produced is exploitation. That's where profit comes from. It's called wage slavery.

Well that's a clear answer that reasonably addresses my point of view and directly rebuts it.


For what I'm paying them. They can in turn save, invest, or start their own businesses with their earnings like I did.


You're conveniently omitting quite a bit just to make claims in line with your views.


Nope.


I should liquidate my life's savings and give it to people who didn't earn it?

If you can produce it on your own, then why are you hiring them? Really, you seem kind of delusional. How much fucking money have you saved from your shit job? It's probably not ever going to be enough for you to become a porky. Here's how porkies REALLY make it big: they get investors. They don't scrape by on savings. They beg megaporkies to make a bet on their business idea, and in return the megaporkies get part of the profit. This is why "small farms" are a zero-sum game right now. The farm owners barely scrape by, and the megaporkies snap up the land when the small farms fold.

In socialism, rather than leaving investment in major public necessities as a task for an unaccountable bourgeois class, the task of deciding which co-ops get startup funds will be left to elected committees and "crowdfund" votes. You can save up your money in peace, and actually spend it on things you want, rather than worrying about using it for some desperate, doomed start-up farm or whatever.

Anyway, you're getting hung up on a one-time deal. Yes, we will take the porky's shit during the revolution. After that, what exactly are you worried about? You'll have healthcare, guaranteed basic living, guaranteed employment, and so on.

The point of socialist revolution is working for security for everyone.


/thread

Manual laborers in Pakistan probably worked ten times harder than you in order to merely get a monthly living wage. We don't care about your rag-to-riches sob story.

You can vote on the pay scale faggot. In co-ops like Mondragon, there's a 1:6 to 1:8 difference in pay between the lowest worker and the top bosses. The point is that it's agreed-upon, not imposed. Even in Soviet Russia, people who worked hard and moved up the ladder would get better wages.

That person is not me. I am OP. But…


No it isn't. If you agree to sell me something for five dollars and I find someone who I can sell it to for ten I didn't somehow magically exploit you.


You're being deliberately disingenuous and choosing to misinterpret my words.


Working for it at my expense for the benefit of "everyone", particularly those who haven't worked for it?

It will at worst make you petty bourgeois. A person owning a small amount of land and often working alongside their employees. The real capitalist in this scenario would be the bank giving you the loan to by property.
And yes we want to seize the means of production, but by "we" we refer to the workers, in this case you.
Think of it like making everyone a "capitalist", giving them ownership of their own work.


A strange way to look at it, but yes, your accumulation of wealth will mean less if you compare it with the average worker, but you will materialistically be pretty much the same.
Keep in mind that this could easily happen under capitalism to. If your silk worm plan doesn't pan out you stand to lose a lot more than we want to take.

I'm not responsible for Pakistan any more than you are responsible for Uganda.

So you want me to communalize my property then use a loophole to ensure that I'm still paid more?

democracy isn't a loophole faggot. I'm going to stop responding now because you're skimming over all the arguments ITT.

With ingredients bought by the owner. In an oven bought by the owner. Using power paid for by the owner. In a building owned and managed by the owner.

Past labor devalues current labor because the past labor was converted into experience, equipment, etc– the purpose of the past labor is to devalue current/future labor.

"not my fault" is not an answer to my question.


but what if compensation is NOT less than the value of what they produce? employees agree to work for a certain amount of pay.


capitalism isnt some system that was dreamed up in a school, it's a natural process that grows out of the realities of resource competition.

Well… As a matter of fact, in this specific case, you swindled him.

If someone is compensated more than what they produce the "boss" is a fucking idiot and going to tank that business

...

yeah. that happens all the time.

can't tell the point you're trying to make, agreeing with me or not? seems tangential.

You apparently want the fruits of ALL their labor. Really, you should start with justifying that.

You don't have to if you can work the land yourself. It's your labor, you're using the land, you keep the entirety of your labor. Under socialism the land doesn't belong to "you." You didn't make it, you just bought it. Since we aren't entitled to things we don't make ourselves, you don't own the land. The community owns the land and communally decides what to do with it. If you're operating it yourself and occupying it yourself, then you should be able to keep it to yourself. Ideally your family would live there for… as long as you lived there I guess.

wew lad. I kind of feel like I wasted time trying to explain things to you now.


Yeah. Either they get to keep the product of their labor or you don't get to operate your farm. If its small enough for you to work yourself, then fine, enjoy your farm. If you need other people to work it, then they get to have a say in how their workplace is run and by whom.

wew, job creators, amirite?

The thing is, they don't need you. Your farm is built on stolen land and with dead labor, none of which would have been possible without the aid of society. You aren't entitled to your own private little tyranny, or justified because you bought it any more than the old gentry was justified because they were born into it.

What part of getting less than what your labor is worth not exploitative? You get to keep everything as though you made it, when you only did a fraction of the work. Why should you get all of theirs? You didn't build any of this stuff, you didn't plant any of these trees, you didn't make the land that your farm is sitting on you just bought it them and paid for them, so why does all of this work you didn't do belong to you?

I don't see the point you are trying to make with the initial statement that I responded to honestly so maybe that was tangential and unneeded

Correction it's not a natural process, it's a historical one. And yes at some point it had been created, theorized and expended.

if that's your reaction then you probably have a different understanding of capitalism. you're likely thinking of the crony-corporate bullshit going on these days

at its core capitalism is a more evolved for of animal behavior– competition for reserves of resources for self, family and tribe. currency is man's replacement for the necessity of violence/theft/conquest in animal competition. this is the whole backbone of civilization dude

Oh, so "we" will seize land I paid for through my own hard work, distribute it equally, then "we" all get paid equally from laboring on the land that I built up? That only sounds good for a "we" that doesn't include me.


No I won't. I will literally be forced to start from nothing, and my previously good financial decisions become void.


No, rewriting rules to ensured that I'm paid on a higher scale like an owner even though I'm technically not is the definition of loophole abuse, you commie cocksucker.


I'm not. I've made a set of very concrete statements that have only been responded to by twists of rhetoric and canned theory that doesn't directly deal with my core concerns.

You're not me and you might be confusing people.

So everything should be a zero sum game? If I make spears for an hour and Ulk makes pottery, and Ulk sells his pottery for more than I sell my spears did Ulk rob me by making more than me?


Nice strawman. Nice deflection of need to make an argument. They're being paid a wage.


My labor went into currency, and I paid for the title to this land with that currency.


The same community that blows their money on quick entertainment instead of saving and investing it? The same who don't work as hard as I do at 12 hour shifts every week? They should get my surplus without paying me out for it?


You've explained nothing. You've made statements that are designed to conceal underlying arguments as not fodder for debate in order to slip them through as being accepted.

Nice argument murder apologist

Your work wasn't any harder than the work done by some McDonalds wageslave. There's nothing about it that entitles you to a miniature fiefdom. Try to refute that.

What a twist: the guy who barged in and expected everyone to share his premise regarding private property and human nature turned out to be one of those "crony capitalism" types.

I work twelve hour shifts and come home with my entire body feeling like spaghetti. Why don't you come here and work a shift and tell me I don't labor harder than someone who works for McDonalds?

Why don't those McDonalds "wage slaves" come work over here for a better paycheck if it's so easy?

This is your brain on Protestantism.

Why don't you refute what I'm saying instead of making a non-statement intended to frame what I'm saying as irrelevant without addressing it?

Or you're capitalism= le free market type then.
But if capitalism is
Not capitalist since the fat cats are using their powers to take the ressources?

Wrong, idiot. That's literally what's happening. You take everything they make and then sell it, then in return give them a fraction of the surplus value you received for it.

You didn't make the land, or even clear it, or till it, or anything else to it. Your currency is dead labor, useless, imaginary, made even more so by your spooky belief in these porky tickets.

So you still haven't answered my question. If we're entitled only to what we produce, why do you deserve exclusive use of this land you did nothing to make or even prepare, or the things the workers would make?

Yes, that same one.

Wew

It was never yours to begin with, faggot, you didn't make any of it.

Oh I'm sorry no it's my fault I should have realized you have aspergers.

But that's flawed. When a tough decision comes, who decides? What if no one can come to an agreement? To suggest that this would never occur would be ignoring the very nature of the human need for survival.

This is why we have managers. It is their job to oversee everything to avoid strife from occurring. Someone has to lead, or you'll just have chaos.

And? So what?

That doesn't answer the question.

Because where someone is employed isn't up to them, you fucking idiot.

So why do you deserve that fiefdom again?

weeeeew lad

"We need massa. Massa gud fer us. Massa take careuh us. We needs massa cuz widout him we'se a buncha ignint slaves."

Not the person you were talking to but it still doesn't entitle you to your own fiefdom. Why are you struggling with this so hard? In a communist system your workers are entitled to the fruits of their own labor, and should have an equal say in the co-op. Your past labor literally means nothing. You just fell for the capitalist meme.

Not an argument.

No. I build a business. I offer them jobs working for me at an agreed upon salary. They work for me. I pay them what I agreed to.


I'm buying the title.


Do you know shit about farming faggot? Or are you one of those soft cunts who doesn't know what hard labor actually entails?


Well that confirms that.


"Hey, answer this question that confirms an alien frame of reference! By acknowledging it as valid and answering it you accept a framework that indicts your position!"

Wow, what an argument.


I sincerely doubt you've ever made anything in your adult life.

Evasion. I refuted the point that was made and now you behave as though no point was made at all.


Sure it does.

Are you literally fucking retarded? ARE YOU?

So we agree then. The people who don't want to work are welcome to die in the streets.

Under communism/socialism, though– those people wouldn't be left to die in the streets (well, they WOULD, and history has proven that they have, but talking about your theoretical utopia). They'd still get "free" food , and it would have to be stolen from small family farms like the ones in question.


OK? We don't need them either.

Me and my family enjoy my farm, food, comfort, and everything that comes with it. We produce exactly enough for us, the farm doesn't provide surplus food.

The purpose of hiring other people is so the farm is expanded to provide jobs and resources for the community. If they don't want those jobs, then they can't get the resources.


now this kind of stuff is a bit outrageous. you sound like you've had some really bad bosses in your time dude.


shit assumption: that they are getting paid less than they're worth. a good businessman/boss will know the worth of his workers.

It absolutely is.

I can't believe I share a board with these people

i don't follow. maybe i wasn't clear!

i'm against crony capitalism. it's capitalism ruined by corruption and over-regulation.

capitalism requires regulations to be stable, so it doesn't collapse into socialism nor collapse into crony capitalism (both of which in the end have the same result)

Hey OP I was the one who called you fuckface.

"The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend."

not trying to be you, it's a good thread.

didnt realize this board doesn't have IDs tho, you got a point fam

I hope this is your first time reading this.

"From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class."

But really good luck respecting the gentle laborer because he works hard, like you did. You are totally not "the past dominating the present" and you would surely not find yourself forced by the market to pay your farm workers poor wages to stay afloat.

it is capitalist. i'm not arguing against that.

capitalism has downsides when taken to extremes and when there's corruption.

regulations are necessary. at the same time, too many regulations are bad.

capitalism isn't some perfect designed system. like i said, it's just a meme we use so we can think about and talk about a natural process.

No dummy man at they produce determines the value of their labor. Lets say your employee harvests, in one hour, $12 worth of crops but you only pay him $8 for that hour. You are exploiting them and they are a wage slave. I know you'll counter with "muhh property and labor" but you need to remember that in this system neither of those things count for shit. Those are capitalist constructions, and the reason we want to do it is because it benefits everyone. Fucking Google things like crime rates and health statistics in countries with greater equality. Literally even the piggies who survive the wall will generally have healthier, less stressful lives.

No, you misunderstand me. What I mean is, if you are the only worker, then you are entitled to the land under socialism. The redistribution would only come in to play if you where the "owner" of the land but, had other people work it for you.


As I explained, materialistically you as a petite bourgeoisie will be materialistically pretty much the same of. You can have your farm and your silkworms, your house and your car to.
As for your previous financial decisions, yes they will mean less, but only in the sense that people who have made worse financial decisions will find them selves in a similar situation as yourself. If you need people to be worse of than yourself to feel good about your financial decisions, then socialism is not for you.

You didn't do anything! You still haven't explained yet why you're entitled to other people's work.

Again, more things you didn't make. Why are you entitled to this land you didn't make?

Did you do any of the labor to build the farm, faggot? Because it sounds alot like you didn't. So why are you entitled to it?

The exact opposite of an argument.

It's the same frame of reference you dipshit. We both agree that an individual is entitled to the sum of his labor, so what's the fucking problem?

Even if I didn't it wouldn't invalidate anything I said.


An individual is entitled to everything he makes.

A person should have a say in how their community is run. No one should have to be homeless, and they shouldn't be exploited in order to do so.

You're the one that brought other workers into this you fucking faggot.

Great! Keep all your fucking mulberries. IF IT COMES BY YOUR LABOR IT BELONGS TO YOU.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself to you idiots.

Your farm is built on stolen land and with dead labor, none of which would have been possible without the aid of society. You aren't entitled to your own private little tyranny, or justified because you bought it any more than the old gentry was justified because they were born into it.

You are absolutely paying them less than the value of their labor you stupid fuck, otherwise you wouldn't make a profit.


You should tell that to the increasing number of people that have no jobs then. For some reason someone told them they were fired and they believed it!

You were perfectly clear. You're whining about "crony capitalism" as if it where a separate phenomenon from capitalism proper. Which doesn't make sense, no matter how much you try to push your tear-jerking rag-to-riches narrative.

You're not special, dude. We have guys like you spouting "muh crony capitalism" every fucking day.

Literally the only explanation left for this thread.

Even if I didn't it wouldn't make a difference in regards to the veracity of the argument.

You didn't make a point. So what if you work hard? Does that mean if someone came and work harder than you, they could just take your house?

It doesn't. "Hard work" is completely subjective, you spooked up idiot. Your compensation has nothing to do with the difficulty of your labor.

I'm beginning to think you are. You're seriously saying that someone can just walk into a place and hire themselves. What, did all those people who lost their manufacturing jobs just choose to send their jobs offshore?

I literally never said this. Your either not getting it or your being disingenuous. Those who are doing the work can do the buying and selling. You can keep your money you've gotten so far. Redistributing it doesn't solve the problem. The problem being the hierarchical nature of capitalism.

Take a look at pice related. With one addendum, that if your work more/produce more, you would be able to sell more, and thus make more money that way, rather than crossing your fingers and hoping someone richer will just give you money.


Exchange has existed before markets, markets have existed before capitalism, and will probably exist after it. no shit shelock and so on. Our criticism is the organization of how enterprises are run. See above.

It's human nature user, who are you to judge?


No you poor soul, it's only a regular lolbert. Capitalist ideology stronk.

I'm new to this board. Do you really mean no matter how many times you explain it, they just won't get it?

Stop dropping this word like you actually know what it means. No one is "entitled" to anything in capitalism. It'd be more accurate if you dropped this buzzword in reference to communism, the actual system where people are entitled to things regardless of the amount of effort and time put into things.

This person whom was fired chose their place of employment where they were fired from. Thus, they chose their own job. Whether or not they can retain said job, because of their own lack of competence or the fault of someone else, is actually entirely relevant to the single fact that they chose their own job.

this doesn't work.

"muhh property and labor" actually IS the counter-argument, and it DOES count for shit.

the infrastructure, equipment, etc, needs to be paid for. my own time and labor, doing management, bookkeeping, maintenance, etc, also needs to be paid for.

you're imagining this farm like it's a jew york insurance company where the CEO makes billions and billions of dollars. in reality, the farm-owner doesn't really make much profit after all the expenses that go into the farm itself. after all is said and done, he's likely in the same economic class as the people he employs.

Agreed 100%. He's also thus entitled to sell it.


it makes total sense. capitalism can mean a bunch of different things.

see my response here:

sometimes it can be good and sometimes it can be bad. that's the crux of my argument.

that has to do with leadership, structure, regulations, and uninformed workers, and not capitalism itself.

if there are no bosses, what's to prevent one of the workers from deciding that he is owed more than the others? who makes the decisions? who has responsibility?

into things.
It's like you're in a different thread

In a co-op the workers share the burden. It's not like you'd buy everything and they keep the profits.

...

Actual depiction of commiecuck system in practice. Spoilers, they both suck at their worst

You can't be serious. You think people chose where they're born? You think anyone can just move at the other side of one country just to run after a job? You think the redneck father of a poor family can just move somewhere else when the sole factory of his town close?


That's the power of the current system, you become unable to think outside it, the categories and reasonings of capitalism become natural laws, and if you bring a radically different perspective, you're "using rhetoric" or "twist the meaning of the words."

I'm fine with co-ops. In fact I love the idea of small self-sustaining villages where the families work together and share their profits together. It can totally work in these situations.

It does NOT work for entire countries. It does not work for large groups of people. It sure as hell is not going to work for the entire world. The world is capitalist by nature– either there's war or there's trade. SOMEONE will always want what you have (be it resources, wealth, or even just safety).

Middle ground that commies don't seem to understand: Socialist communities (even nations) who compete with each other in capitalism. Socialism within the walls, capitalism outside.

A leader you choose democratically is still a manager.

have you seen the US in the last 20 years? people will vote for someone they LIKE, or someone who they think other people like.

leadership should be the people with the most experience, most intelligence, best work ethic, and management/delegation skills.

democracy is proving itself a failure because people vote for the coolest dude who promises more free shit

What do you mean? The ruling class are doing very well for themselves under the current system.

In this case, he's accountable to the workers, not the shareholders. That's still quite a big change.

clearly this entitles you to a fiefdom, while twelve hours of labor at Mcdonalds doesn't.

No, their parents did.
Yes. People have and will continue to do so successfully.
I don't think he can, no. He most likely does not have enough financial capability to do this. Fortunately, just because he's a redneck father of a poor family does not mean he's unintelligent. If he had been paying attention at all at work, they were likely signs, if not outright statements from employers that they'd be shutting down soon. With this foreknowledge he should've started looking for other job opportunities before it was too late. If he didn't do this, he has only himself to blame.

I never denied that capitalism had it's downsides, but your method is no better.

And look how well that works out. Even in this position they can be corrupt and give favors to other people in order to remain in power. What are the ones who don't like them going to do, over throw the leader? If the others are getting a great deal from said leader they will defend them.

a+ bait
if you've been reading my posts you'd see why your comment is shit


what "entitles" him to a fiefdom is that he was intelligent enough to save up his money and turn it into something worthwhile

the people working at mcdonalds spend their money on drugs and sex and a new iphone every 6 months

t. monarchist

I'm done. This thread has demonstrated to me what I wanted to know about why Leftists think they are entitled to the sweat of my brow even though nobody here answered my question in any direct fashion. Your frame of reference is so incredibly skewed that it is impossible for someone who hasn't been indoctrinated into your little cult to discuss this with you.

Bye faggot don't let the door hit you.

But thank you for this sentence, the irony in this made my day!

He really didn't get answers though. Just a bunch of theory shouted at him and questions that didn't directly relate to what he asked.

You're right it doesn't and we don't actually want that. Communists are inherently also kind of anarchists

A lot of people addressed his questions and explained why we want what we do. OP for whatever reason simply could not comprehend because he was stupid

He refused to accept your framework out of hand. You failed to argue your framework over his.

Breddy gud :DDD

The problem is who owns the means of production, and it isn't the workers. And no, the state shouldn't either, that's worse.

This meme again. You seem to think workers wouldn't elect a leader. No I don't mean every day either. If a worker doesn't work, he's fired. Duh. The only thing that entitles him to earn more money is if he works harder. Also see

He who doesn't work, doesn't eat - Lenin. Also, nice strawman.


I do admit debating liberals and lolberts is more intellectually challenging then the typical REEE YOU CUCKKIKESHILL REEEE, though not by a hell of allot. We mostly have explains ourselves and tear down strawmen, then you get arguments like 'durr, da werkers caint due nuffin themselfs! They need da daddy to leed em!'


This is a problem with representative democracy. You are literally electing people to vote on things instead of being able to vote on them themselves. This leads to secrecy and shitty laws all around. I agree a leader should be someone who is the most qualified.

Sounds almost like your talking about social democracy.

I'm not bothered that he doesn't agree. I genuinely think he missed the point when it was presented to him. I'm not even a really a gommie, but I feel like there was enough evidence in this thread to answer his question.

I'm glad this is bump locked so I don't need to feel bad about getting so sidetracked.

Where was it explained to him why he should give up something that he purchased, and his society agrees that he purchased, with money he worked for, to satisfy other people's politics? People just threw


at him until he quit posting.

second half of
if he needed an incentive

thanks for reading the thread though

That wasn't a response to OP.

Because your ideology prevents you from thinking outside the box your in. Every reply you've made has levels of misunderstanding. We literally stated multiple times that you have the right to what you actually make and use, not other peoples work, everything else is just spooky shit.


TBH people should've let him know that he himself was exploited for wages he worked for in the beginning.

they did


my bad. He still could've read the thread since the entire thing was related to his questions

No, he tried to debate under false pretenses, pretending to want clarification to what would happen to his farm under socialism.
He had of course not understood correctly, but when this was clarified it became abundantly clear that he had no interest in this, but actually wanted to push his own ideology. Cluster fuck ensued. We all learned a valuable lesson of trying to be honest when debating ideas, instead of being a little bitch like OP.

Right. But that was his point: if someone had said that to him he would have counterargued that he wasn't exploited. Instead people skipped doing that because they wanted to avoid that counterargument. People were disingenuous with how they approached the discussion.

Shiggydiggydoo.

Honestly this thread is a pretty good indicator of why Communism hasn't caught on with the general population.

There too busy debating other lefties. Sectarianism is the lefts greatest weakness. The Red ScareTM and the Soviet union doesn't help much either.

Anyone?

woops wrong thread

Seems to me that it boils down to that he shouldn't be able to rent out his means of production to other people. (as that is essential what wage labour is)
but how do you argue that people shouldn't be allowed to rent things out?

Typically with violence and the demonization of the renter.

subjective abstraction.
Where the fuck do you think we are?
Apparently being a newspaper columnist isn't a job now.