LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Which is why I don't agree with the socialist system. The good thing about this system is that I can employ the person who answers the telephone, and if he doesn't think he's getting decent wages he is perfectly free to go find someone else who will pay him better ones.

You do realize you could theoretically also do that under (non-authoritarian) Socialism, right? In all likelihood, you'd be hard-pressed to find somebody who'd be willing to be unequally valued in such a business dynamic, but it could happen and so long as it was a voluntary agreement and you'd be willing to have at least some flexibilities with payment if issues arose there likely wouldn't be anything wrong about it.

My dads work (buying houses and selling them at a profit) would be even more ruined by socialism.

I mean, housing should quite literally be a guaranteed human right, and most likely would be under any Socialist system worth its salt, so your dad would probably definitely be out of work in that regard but otherwise wouldn't have to worry about losing his home because of that.

That's why I don't really like that sort of business dynamic. What next? The cleaner in a law firm getting payed as much as a senior partner?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

found a socialist literature club, I did.

When you advocate leftism through your school’s debate team.

I joined the debate club in grade eight, before I got into politics. But it took too much out of my breaks and I didn't like that they made us argue for things we were against or vice versa, so I quit. Maybe I should've stayed.

[Kowani]

When you advocate leftism through your school’s debate team.

I joined the debate club in grade eight, before I got into politics. But it took too much out of my breaks and I didn't like that they made us argue for things we were against or vice versa, so I quit. Maybe I should've stayed.

Perhaps. There is benefit, from being able to argue the other side. But I don’t think I was that mature in 2° ESO, so I’m not allowed to lecture you on it.

[Trotskylvania]

So, to continue the discussion from the Antifa thread:

If I am self-employed, and build custom websites for people, but have somebody who answers the telephone working for me, how is it right that I should pay the person who answers the telephone anything more than the going rate for someone who answers the telephone? I don't see why he should receive a share of the profits.

There's no money in socialism and anyone who says there is is just trying to put red paint on capitalism.

There's also no mediating layer between labor and society. Unlike in capitalism, where labor is indirectly social and mediated through the market, in socialism all labor is directly social. To put it in simple terms, everyone's labor is pooled in the social plan, and they receive from that pool whatever they want, at most mediated by rationing for need or labor-time contributed.

[Pacomia]

So, to continue the discussion from the Antifa thread:

If I am self-employed, and build custom websites for people, but have somebody who answers the telephone working for me, how is it right that I should pay the person who answers the telephone anything more than the going rate for someone who answers the telephone? I don't see why he should receive a share of the profits.

There's no money in socialism and anyone who says there is is just trying to put red paint on capitalism.

There's also no mediating layer between labor and society. Unlike in capitalism, where labor is indirectly social and mediated through the market, in socialism all labor is directly social. To put it in simple terms, everyone's labor is pooled in the social plan, and they receive from that pool whatever they want, at most mediated by rationing for need or labor-time contributed.

That's a very specific type of socialism.

[Trotskylvania]

The Incel "Fully Automated Luxury Communism"
The Chad "Post-apocalyptic Tolkienesque cargo cult"

[Cappuccina]

So, to continue the discussion from the Antifa thread:

If I am self-employed, and build custom websites for people, but have somebody who answers the telephone working for me, how is it right that I should pay the person who answers the telephone anything more than the going rate for someone who answers the telephone? I don't see why he should receive a share of the profits.

There's no money in socialism and anyone who says there is is just trying to put red paint on capitalism.

There's also no mediating layer between labor and society. Unlike in capitalism, where labor is indirectly social and mediated through the market, in socialism all labor is directly social. To put it in simple terms, everyone's labor is pooled in the social plan, and they receive from that pool whatever they want, at most mediated by rationing for need or labor-time contributed.

That's communism.

Let's not pretend all socialists believe in that post-scarcity crap.

[Trotskylvania]

There's no money in socialism and anyone who says there is is just trying to put red paint on capitalism.

There's also no mediating layer between labor and society. Unlike in capitalism, where labor is indirectly social and mediated through the market, in socialism all labor is directly social. To put it in simple terms, everyone's labor is pooled in the social plan, and they receive from that pool whatever they want, at most mediated by rationing for need or labor-time contributed.

That's a very specific type of socialism.

Socialism is the negation of capitalism. Trying to pretend that socialism is just some rearrangment in how private property and money is distributed is farcical.

There's no money in socialism and anyone who says there is is just trying to put red paint on capitalism.

There's also no mediating layer between labor and society. Unlike in capitalism, where labor is indirectly social and mediated through the market, in socialism all labor is directly social. To put it in simple terms, everyone's labor is pooled in the social plan, and they receive from that pool whatever they want, at most mediated by rationing for need or labor-time contributed.

That's communism.

Let's not pretend all socialists believe in that post-scarcity crap.

People who believe that communism requires post-scarcity are idealist technology fetishists.

Trying to make a distinction between socialism and communism is silly, because everyone's version of "socialism" just then becomes some way of trying to mediate the contradictions of capitalist political economy by having unions run everything (syndicalism), redistributing surpluses (social democracy) or having the state engage in direct capitalist accumulation (Stalinism).

[Kowani]

That's a very specific type of socialism.

Socialism is the negation of capitalism. Trying to pretend that socialism is just some rearrangment in how private property and money is distributed is farcical.

That's communism.

Let's not pretend all socialists believe in that post-scarcity crap.

People who believe that communism requires post-scarcity are idealist technology fetishists.

Trying to make a distinction between socialism and communism is silly, because everyone's version of "socialism" just then becomes some way of trying to mediate the contradictions of capitalist political economy by having unions run everything (syndicalism), redistributing surpluses (social democracy) or having the state engage in direct capitalist accumulation (Stalinism).

Or by being me and advocating post scarcity economics.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That's a very specific type of socialism.

Socialism is the negation of capitalism. Trying to pretend that socialism is just some rearrangment in how private property and money is distributed is farcical.

That's communism.

Let's not pretend all socialists believe in that post-scarcity crap.

People who believe that communism requires post-scarcity are idealist technology fetishists.

Trying to make a distinction between socialism and communism is silly, because everyone's version of "socialism" just then becomes some way of trying to mediate the contradictions of capitalist political economy by having unions run everything (syndicalism), redistributing surpluses (social democracy) or having the state engage in direct capitalist accumulation (Stalinism).

What do you mean by "Socialism is the negation of Capitalism" and also, what do you mean by capitalism?

[Trotskylvania]

Socialism is the negation of capitalism. Trying to pretend that socialism is just some rearrangment in how private property and money is distributed is farcical.

People who believe that communism requires post-scarcity are idealist technology fetishists.

Trying to make a distinction between socialism and communism is silly, because everyone's version of "socialism" just then becomes some way of trying to mediate the contradictions of capitalist political economy by having unions run everything (syndicalism), redistributing surpluses (social democracy) or having the state engage in direct capitalist accumulation (Stalinism).

What do you mean by "Socialism is the negation of Capitalism" and also, what do you mean by capitalism?

Capitalism is the mode production characterized by the existence of generalized commodity production. In other words, most labor is no longer private/subsistence based. Instead, goods are produced for their exchange value and sold in the market. Within the competitive market, this creates a drive to accumulate capital, to revolutionize production by employing more labor-power more efficiently.

Within this society there exists two primary classes: the bourgeoisie who have accumulated more capital than they could possibly effectively utilize with their own labor, and so must employ others, and the proletariat whose only possession of real value is their ability to labor, and thus must rent themselves out to others.

When I say that socialism is the negation of capitalism, I mean it in the totalility. Bourgeois society is made in the image of the bourgeoisie, its norms are reflected in the interests of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat, who are themselves the negation of the bourgeoisie, are reduced to commodities by this society.

It doesn't make much difference whether you call it socialism or communism. It is the real movement by workers to abolish the conditions that turn them into tools, and that requires the abolition of the class system that drives the commodification of labor. The dictatorship of the proletariat exists to abolish all classes, including itself.

[Torrocca]

You do realize you could theoretically also do that under (non-authoritarian) Socialism, right? In all likelihood, you'd be hard-pressed to find somebody who'd be willing to be unequally valued in such a business dynamic, but it could happen and so long as it was a voluntary agreement and you'd be willing to have at least some flexibilities with payment if issues arose there likely wouldn't be anything wrong about it.



I mean, housing should quite literally be a guaranteed human right, and most likely would be under any Socialist system worth its salt, so your dad would probably definitely be out of work in that regard but otherwise wouldn't have to worry about losing his home because of that.

That's why I don't really like that sort of business dynamic. What next? The cleaner in a law firm getting payed as much as a senior partner?

Assuming the cleaner and the senior partner have come to an agreement that their labor is equally valuable to the law firm's success, the senior partner's because they handle court cases and the cleaner's because they ensure the office stays cleaned and organized so that the senior partner can maintain their focus entirely on their cases? Yes. Because that's how Socialism works. As I said, though, there's always the alternative under Socialism of simply contracting a cleaner every so often instead, or coming to an agreement with one working for this firm full-time to be paid less than the senior partner. The latter would be less likely than the other two, but still possible and, again, as long as it was a voluntarily-agreed-upon matter and the senior partner allowed for flexibility in payment in the event that the cleaner needed more or whatever, there'd likely be nothing wrong with such an arrangement.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Assuming the cleaner and the senior partner have come to an agreement that their labor is equally valuable to the law firm's success, the senior partner's because they handle court cases and the cleaner's because they ensure the office stays cleaned and organized so that the senior partner can maintain their focus entirely on their cases? Yes. Because that's how Socialism works. As I said, though, there's always the alternative under Socialism of simply contracting a cleaner every so often instead, or coming to an agreement with one working for this firm full-time to be paid less than the senior partner. The latter would be less likely than the other two, but still possible and, again, as long as it was a voluntarily-agreed-upon matter and the senior partner allowed for flexibility in payment in the event that the cleaner needed more or whatever, there'd likely be nothing wrong with such an arrangement.

Honestly, the only reason socialists believe this crap is because they're the cleaner and not the senior partner.

[Pacomia]

The Incel "Fully Automated Luxury Communism"
The Chad "Post-apocalyptic Tolkienesque cargo cult"

We know what’s best for them.

[Impaled Nazarene]

Ancom reporting.

[Torrocca]

Assuming the cleaner and the senior partner have come to an agreement that their labor is equally valuable to the law firm's success, the senior partner's because they handle court cases and the cleaner's because they ensure the office stays cleaned and organized so that the senior partner can maintain their focus entirely on their cases? Yes. Because that's how Socialism works. As I said, though, there's always the alternative under Socialism of simply contracting a cleaner every so often instead, or coming to an agreement with one working for this firm full-time to be paid less than the senior partner. The latter would be less likely than the other two, but still possible and, again, as long as it was a voluntarily-agreed-upon matter and the senior partner allowed for flexibility in payment in the event that the cleaner needed more or whatever, there'd likely be nothing wrong with such an arrangement.

Honestly, the only reason socialists believe this crap is because they're the cleaner and not the senior partner.

Or maybe it's because devaluing one worker over the other for superficial reasons when it's clear both are needed for the success of their business (otherwise one of those two wouldn't even be there, to begin with) is objectively bullshit?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Or maybe it's because devaluing one worker over the other for superficial reasons when it's clear both are needed for the success of their business (otherwise one of those two wouldn't even be there, to begin with) is objectively bullshit?

Ahh yes, if I employ a professional surveyor and a guy who staples paper together, I must pay them the same wage.

Your economic theory astounds.

[Kowani]

Or maybe it's because devaluing one worker over the other for superficial reasons when it's clear both are needed for the success of their business (otherwise one of those two wouldn't even be there, to begin with) is objectively bullshit?

Ahh yes, if I employ a professional surveyor and a guy who staples paper together, I must pay them the same wage.

Your economic theory astounds.

Clearly it astounds you, because you don’t understand it.

[Torrocca]

Or maybe it's because devaluing one worker over the other for superficial reasons when it's clear both are needed for the success of their business (otherwise one of those two wouldn't even be there, to begin with) is objectively bullshit?

Ahh yes, if I employ a professional surveyor and a guy who staples paper together, I must pay them the same wage.

Your economic theory astounds.

If you've voluntarily entered into an agreement with both of these workers (as a worker yourself, because that's how things would be under Socialism), where you agree to have equal ownership over the means of production of your business and thus total ownership of the fruits of your collective labor, then yes, you three would earn the same from any profits that business makes. That's how Socialism works. And, hell, there's no reason to assume that the business's labor would be divided up so one person professionally surveys land and the other just staples papers together while you do... whatever role you're taking on in this model. Your paper stapler duder could easily take on multiple roles, and most likely would be, since regulating a single person to just the singular task of stapling papers together would be something pretty damn stupid that I'm sure even the paper stapler would agree with.

Workplace equality isn't going to be a one-way street under Socialism, and it shouldn't be seen as such.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What do you mean by "Socialism is the negation of Capitalism" and also, what do you mean by capitalism?

Capitalism is the mode production characterized by the existence of generalized commodity production. In other words, most labor is no longer private/subsistence based. Instead, goods are produced for their exchange value and sold in the market. Within the competitive market, this creates a drive to accumulate capital, to revolutionize production by employing more labor-power more efficiently.

Within this society there exists two primary classes: the bourgeoisie who have accumulated more capital than they could possibly effectively utilize with their own labor, and so must employ others, and the proletariat whose only possession of real value is their ability to labor, and thus must rent themselves out to others.

When I say that socialism is the negation of capitalism, I mean it in the totalility. Bourgeois society is made in the image of the bourgeoisie, its norms are reflected in the interests of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat, who are themselves the negation of the bourgeoisie, are reduced to commodities by this society.

It doesn't make much difference whether you call it socialism or communism. It is the real movement by workers to abolish the conditions that turn them into tools, and that requires the abolition of the class system that drives the commodification of labor. The dictatorship of the proletariat exists to abolish all classes, including itself.

I personally thought Capitalism was defined as private ownership of the means of production, and Socialism was defined as collective worker ownership of the means of production.

Isn't the drive of every economic model to be efficient? To have a low labour & resource to yield ratio?

Also, I really dislike the term "dictatorship of the proletariat." Because A, why are you calling what you want a dictatorship? And B, it seems to be a contradiction in terms. The proletariat are underdogs, and dictators are overdogs. So it's really either a ""dictatorship"" of the proletariat, or a dictatorship of the ""proletariat.""

[Pacomia]

Ahh yes, if I employ a professional surveyor and a guy who staples paper together, I must pay them the same wage.

Your economic theory astounds.

Clearly it astounds you, because you don’t understand it.

To be honest, he has a point. I mean, so does Torra, but still.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So, to continue the discussion from the Antifa thread:

If I am self-employed, and build custom websites for people, but have somebody who answers the telephone working for me, how is it right that I should pay the person who answers the telephone anything more than the going rate for someone who answers the telephone? I don't see why he should receive a share of the profits.

There's no money in socialism and anyone who says there is is just trying to put red paint on capitalism.

There's also no mediating layer between labor and society. Unlike in capitalism, where labor is indirectly social and mediated through the market, in socialism all labor is directly social. To put it in simple terms, everyone's labor is pooled in the social plan, and they receive from that pool whatever they want, at most mediated by rationing for need or labor-time contributed.

If there's no money in Socialism, what of market Socialism, and how do you prevent money from arising naturally in a Socialist society?

[Kowani]

Clearly it astounds you, because you don’t understand it.

To be honest, he has a point. I mean, so does Torra, but still.

No, no he doesn’t. It is a voluntary undertaking- You know what? Let’s look at Torra’s post that started this.

Assuming the cleaner and the senior partner have come to an agreement that their labor is equally valuable to the law firm's success, the senior partner's because they handle court cases and the cleaner's because they ensure the office stays cleaned and organized so that the senior partner can maintain their focus entirely on their cases? Yes. Because that's how Socialism works. As I said, though, there's always the alternative under Socialism of simply contracting a cleaner every so often instead, or coming to an agreement with one working for this firm full-time to be paid less than the senior partner. The latter would be less likely than the other two, but still possible and, again, as long as it was a voluntarily-agreed-upon matter and the senior partner allowed for flexibility in payment in the event that the cleaner needed more or whatever, there'd likely be nothing wrong with such an arrangement.

Ignoring you read this and came to the conclusion “I havd to pay everyone equally...Oh, dear.

[Kowani]

There's no money in socialism and anyone who says there is is just trying to put red paint on capitalism.

There's also no mediating layer between labor and society. Unlike in capitalism, where labor is indirectly social and mediated through the market, in socialism all labor is directly social. To put it in simple terms, everyone's labor is pooled in the social plan, and they receive from that pool whatever they want, at most mediated by rationing for need or labor-time contributed.

If there's no money in Socialism, what of market Socialism, and how do you prevent money from arising naturally in a Socialist society?

Well, you prevent money from arising by virtue of not being necessary. Money is used to trade for goods and services indirectly, yeah? But if everyone puts goods and services into the pot, they can withdraw from that pot.

[Salus Maior]

Ahh yes, if I employ a professional surveyor and a guy who staples paper together, I must pay them the same wage.

Your economic theory astounds.

Clearly it astounds you, because you don’t understand it.

Well, maybe you could try explaining it.

If the value of their work isn't the same, why should they get the same salary?