LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Torrocca]

You were literally talking about being in financial ruin a few months ago. You'd be more fed receiving the full value of your labor, not a value assigned to you by some Capitalist fuckwit.

He's a temporarily embarrassed billionaire, not in "financial ruin." God.

Damn, I've been EPICLY DESTROYED by FACTS and LOGIC.

*dies*

[Northern Davincia]

I suppose, but economically the Marxist interpretation is false. The bourgeois generate value from risk-taking, which is why the total output of wealth now is greater than ever before.

Conventional thieves take risks every time they steal from others. If you take someone's wallet, for example, you risk being sent to prison.
And I'd like to point out here that GDP, even per-capita, isn't a very good metric for measuring economic success compared to things like HDI and quality of life. Money is worthless on its own, we should instead measure how that money is used to benefit people.

But thieves still do not generate value. Quality of life directly correlates with economic freedom.

[Torrocca]

Conventional thieves take risks every time they steal from others. If you take someone's wallet, for example, you risk being sent to prison.
And I'd like to point out here that GDP, even per-capita, isn't a very good metric for measuring economic success compared to things like HDI and quality of life. Money is worthless on its own, we should instead measure how that money is used to benefit people.

But thieves still do not generate value. Quality of life directly correlates with economic freedom.

Neat, so when are you going to support the freedom inherent to economic democracy and social ownership of the means of production?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Conventional thieves take risks every time they steal from others. If you take someone's wallet, for example, you risk being sent to prison.
And I'd like to point out here that GDP, even per-capita, isn't a very good metric for measuring economic success compared to things like HDI and quality of life. Money is worthless on its own, we should instead measure how that money is used to benefit people.

But thieves still do not generate value.

You say that like I ever claimed otherwise. The disagreement isn't about what a thief does, it's about whether or not indirect theft qualifies.

Quality of life directly correlates with economic freedom.

How long did it take you to dig up an article that agreed with you? I can only assume it took a while, since not only have I never heard of Boris Nikolaev, Wikipedia hasn't either. Maaaaybe try using sources that are well known enough that I can actually fact check them.
So here's a source you can fact check: https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/ ... ountry.jsp

[Kubra]

Conventional thieves take risks every time they steal from others. If you take someone's wallet, for example, you risk being sent to prison.
And I'd like to point out here that GDP, even per-capita, isn't a very good metric for measuring economic success compared to things like HDI and quality of life. Money is worthless on its own, we should instead measure how that money is used to benefit people.

But thieves still do not generate value. Quality of life directly correlates with economic freedom.

they do not generate value, sure, but the thieves decisions are indistinguishable from any other form of economic decision. It's mere risk and reward, no?

[Northern Davincia]

I can't hate what keeps me fed.

You were literally talking about being in financial ruin a few months ago. You'd be more fed receiving the full value of your labor, not a value assigned to you by some Capitalist fuckwit.

I'm being literal; my boss fed me when I couldn't afford food. He isn't a wealthy man by any means, but farm work is honest work (albeit still low in value).

You were literally talking about being in financial ruin a few months ago. You'd be more fed receiving the full value of your labor, not a value assigned to you by some Capitalist fuckwit.

He's a temporarily embarrassed billionaire, not in "financial ruin." God.

My situation is much, much better than it was a few months ago. Patience is key in recovery.

I can't hate what keeps me fed.

If you lived in a communist state, would you oppose the ruling government?

Yes, communist states have a poor track record of keeping people fed. That, and the total lack of freedom would be soul-crushing.

But thieves still do not generate value. Quality of life directly correlates with economic freedom.

Neat, so when are you going to support the freedom inherent to economic democracy and social ownership of the means of production?

When I'm convinced it would be economically successful, and provided it was achieved voluntarily.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Yes, communist states have a poor track record of keeping people fed. That, and the total lack of freedom would be soul-crushing.

This despite the fact that the state is keeping you fed, I see.
Methinks that maybe even you have enough spine to not base your loyalty entirely on who puts food on your table.

[Northern Davincia]

But thieves still do not generate value.

You say that like I ever claimed otherwise. The disagreement isn't about what a thief does, it's about whether or not indirect theft qualifies.

Quality of life directly correlates with economic freedom.

How long did it take you to dig up an article that agreed with you? I can only assume it took a while, since not only have I never heard of Boris Nikolaev, Wikipedia hasn't either. Maaaaybe try using sources that are well known enough that I can actually fact check them.
So here's a source you can fact check: https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/ ... ountry.jsp

My source came from the Journal of Private Enterprise, which is peer-reviewed. Every citation is included.

Yes, communist states have a poor track record of keeping people fed. That, and the total lack of freedom would be soul-crushing.

This despite the fact that the state is keeping you fed, I see.
Methinks that maybe even you have enough spine to not base your loyalty entirely on who puts food on your table.

Indeed, assuming the state doesn't pull a Holodomor on me. Everyone has to have some principle that stands over their needs.

[Torrocca]

You were literally talking about being in financial ruin a few months ago. You'd be more fed receiving the full value of your labor, not a value assigned to you by some Capitalist fuckwit.

I'm being literal; my boss fed me when I couldn't afford food. He isn't a wealthy man by any means, but farm work is honest work (albeit still low in value).

So then your boss understands the struggles of poverty and the faults of Capitalism better than others, and you act like this was a Capitalist act?

Neat, so when are you going to support the freedom inherent to economic democracy and social ownership of the means of production?

When I'm convinced it would be economically successful, and provided it was achieved voluntarily.

Money isn't everything, champ. And it's no measure of success to have a few rich fucks in society while everyone else is impoverished to some degree and has no real say in the ownership and use of the means of production.

[Northern Davincia]

I'm being literal; my boss fed me when I couldn't afford food. He isn't a wealthy man by any means, but farm work is honest work (albeit still low in value).

So then your boss understands the struggles of poverty and the faults of Capitalism better than others, and you act like this was a Capitalist act?

When I'm convinced it would be economically successful, and provided it was achieved voluntarily.

Money isn't everything, champ. And it's no measure of success to have a few rich fucks in society while everyone else is impoverished to some degree and has no real say in the ownership and use of the means of production.

It's a measure of success to have the average fellow living in reasonable comfort and able to provide for his basic needs. It's a greater measure of success for that average fellow to become rich. Ownership of the means of production have nothing to do with it.
Tell me, how is everyone else impoverished to some degree?

[Hanafuridake]

Nah its now National-Anarchism. ^^

Isn't national anarchism a meme ideology?

There are some people in the real world who seriously call themselves that, but they tend to be fringe elements of the far-right that not even the rest of the Neo Nazis take seriously.

[Torrocca]

I'm being literal; my boss fed me when I couldn't afford food. He isn't a wealthy man by any means, but farm work is honest work (albeit still low in value).

So then your boss understands the struggles of poverty and the faults of Capitalism better than others, and you act like this was a Capitalist act?

When I'm convinced it would be economically successful, and provided it was achieved voluntarily.

Money isn't everything, champ. And it's no measure of success to have a few rich fucks in society while everyone else is impoverished to some degree and has no real say in the ownership and use of the means of production.

Y'know what? I'm just gonna lay this out in simple mathematics to hammer the point home, since it seems to be getting missed.

Say there's two halves of labor: Embodied Labor (EL), which is basically tools, equipment, raw materials, and whatever other physical things are needed for production (the means of production, essentially), and Living Labor (LL), or human input that puts the EL to work.

Let's say, for simplicity's sake, EL has a value of $100, and LL per person has a value of $20. Say five people are working with the EL, bringing LL's value to $100. Any unit can be used in lieu of $, and any set of numbers can be used. Whatever they're making is irrelevant, but let's say it's a chair.

Add up EL and LL (so $100 + $100). You've now got a Total Labor (TL) value of $200 for the chair.

$100 would have to go back to get a new supply of EL to make a new chair with, leaving $100 leftover.

Assuming this happens under a Capitalist dynamic, wherein these five workers have an employer privately who owns the EL, the means of production, X ("X" being the profits of the employer subtracted from Y1) would be the number subtracted from the remainder, and Y2/n ("Y2" being the remainder after subtraction and "n" being the number of workers) would be the profit of the workers. For simplicity's sake, let's say X in this instance is $50.

Y now becomes $50, and divided by n (5, in this case) becomes $10 per worker.

EL{$100}+LL{$100}=TL{$200}. TL{$200}-EL{$100}=Y1{$100}. Y1{$100}-X{$50}=Y2{$50}. Y2{$50}/n{5}=$10. That's Capitalism.

Now, what happens under Socialism?

Simple: X - the employer and whatever profits they choose to make off the labor of their workers - is no longer a factor, because now the workers collectively own the EL, the means of production.

So now we go back: $100(EL)+$100(LL)=$200(TL). $200(TL)-$100(EL)=$100(Y). $100(Y)/5(n)=$20.

The workers just got back the full value of their labor off that one chair, and will continue to get back the full value of their labor off every subsequent chair. Each worker, instead of having whatever arbitrary amount of value they've created taken by an employer under Capitalism (in this example, half), receive it back in full. Everyone is better off because of this.

[VoVoDoCo]

Say there's two halves of labor: Embodied Labor (EL), which is basically tools, equipment, raw materials, and whatever other physical things are needed for production (the means of production, essentially), and Living Labor (LL), or human input that puts the EL to work.

Let's say, for simplicity's sake, EL has a value of $100, and LL per person has a value of $20. Say five people are working with the EL, bringing LL's value to $100. Any unit can be used in lieu of $, and any set of numbers can be used. Whatever they're making is irrelevant, but let's say it's a chair.

Add up EL and LL (so $100 + $100). You've now got a Total Labor (TL) value of $200 for the chair.

$100 would have to go back to get a new supply of EL to make a new chair with, leaving $100 leftover.

Your equation leaves out all the labor that business owners/ceo's do. Making a business plan, absorbing financial/legal risk, hiring workers, responding to customers, marketing, supervising, inventory, tech support, etc. The average work week is 34 hours, business owners and ceo's are often the outliers. New York Enterprise Report (as cited by INC) reports that 39% percent of small-business owners reported working more than 50 hours per week, while an additional 25% said they work more than 60 hours a week. Gallup, along with more statistics regarding business owner hours, found that only 57% take vacations, comparable to 48% of workers who do as well.

With CEO's, this work to pay ratio is heightened. It's closer to 62.5 hours a week, ceo'sget less sleep than the average worker, they face unhealthy amounts (80% of average work day) of stress compared to 36% of workers.

Not to mention, CEO's don't often pick their own salaries. They're picked by the directors, whom are picked by the stock holders. These directors don't intentionally "overpay" their CEO employee. That price is the price needed to get somebody to work those brutal hours and grant these directors access to somebody with the skills and education to run the company.

Assuming this happens under a Capitalist dynamic, wherein these five workers have an employer privately who owns the EL, the means of production, X ("X" being the profits of the employer subtracted from Y1) would be the number subtracted from the remainder, and Y2/n ("Y2" being the remainder after subtraction and "n" being the number of workers) would be the profit of the workers. For simplicity's sake, let's say X in this instance is $50.

Y now becomes $50, and divided by n (5, in this case) becomes $10 per worker.

EL{$100}+LL{$100}=TL{$200}. TL{$200}-EL{$100}=Y1{$100}. Y1{$100}-X{$50}=Y2{$50}. Y2{$50}/n{5}=$10. That's Capitalism.

That's fair. 34% of business owners don't have a retirement savings plan (compared to the national average of 25%) and 65%-85% of their worth is usually tied to a single asset. This asset is the business your chair making co-op is set up to do. Remember, it's a widely known fact that co-ops really struggle to acquire the money to build the co-op, and while steps are being taken to rectify this, it's still a major con for sure.

So to summarize, in order to provide the initial funding to your chair business, somebody sacrificed their life savings. So the expectation of owning the business in question is reasonable.

Now, what happens under Socialism?

Simple: X - the employer and whatever profits they choose to make off the labor of their workers - is no longer a factor, because now the workers collectively own the EL, the means of production.

So now we go back: $100(EL)+$100(LL)=$200(TL). $200(TL)-$100(EL)=$100(Y). $100(Y)/5(n)=$20.

The workers just got back the full value of their labor off that one chair, and will continue to get back the full value of their labor off every subsequent chair. Each worker, instead of having whatever arbitrary amount of value they've created taken by an employer under Capitalism (in this example, half), receive it back in full. Everyone is better off because of this.

Capitalism isn't against it. I'm a Capitalist. I love worker co-ops. I wish there were more. Good thing they're growing in number. The amount of co-ops in the bloody Capitalist US have doubled in the past decade, and the growth isn't stopping there. There are some 12 billion baby boomers out there that own a business. 40% of all co-ops start as a result of a priavately owned business selling the asset to the workers. And with the baby boomers businesses beginning to be up for grabs, 70% of them are expected to switch hands.

The future is bright.

[Kubra]

So then your boss understands the struggles of poverty and the faults of Capitalism better than others, and you act like this was a Capitalist act?



Money isn't everything, champ. And it's no measure of success to have a few rich fucks in society while everyone else is impoverished to some degree and has no real say in the ownership and use of the means of production.

It's a measure of success to have the average fellow living in reasonable comfort and able to provide for his basic needs. It's a greater measure of success for that average fellow to become rich. Ownership of the means of production have nothing to do with it.
Tell me, how is everyone else impoverished to some degree?

What is "success"? What's the appeal of it?
I mean, I think I have a vague idea, but I want to make sure everythings on the level.

The Capitalist loses some money if he fucks up; the worker can easily lose everything if the Capitalist fucks up.

It's not the Capitalist taking the most risk.

The capitalist is objectively taking the most risk.

Risk? And what is risk? If I am to understand it, at least from what is given, it is mere equity. But that is not all that can be risked, no?
Tell me: who risks more on a march to and back from Moscow, Napoleon or a lone infantryman in front or behind?

[Torrocca]

Your equation leaves out all the labor that business owners/ceo's do. Making a business plan, absorbing financial/legal risk, hiring workers, responding to customers, marketing, supervising, inventory, tech support, etc. The average work week is 34 hours, business owners and ceo's are often the outliers. New York Enterprise Report (as cited by INC) reports that 39% percent of small-business owners reported working more than 50 hours per week, while an additional 25% said they work more than 60 hours a week. Gallup, along with more statistics regarding business owner hours, found that only 57% take vacations, comparable to 48% of workers who do as well.

With CEO's, this work to pay ratio is heightened. It's closer to 62.5 hours a week, ceo'sget less sleep than the average worker, they face unhealthy amounts (80% of average work day) of stress compared to 36% of workers.

Not to mention, CEO's don't often pick their own salaries. They're picked by the directors, whom are picked by the stock holders. These directors don't intentionally "overpay" their CEO employee. That price is the price needed to get somebody to work those brutal hours and grant these directors access to somebody with the skills and education to run the company.

Okay, so, we have all this laid out, in addition to what I've brought up. And you've brought up valid points regarding overtime work and so on.

With that in mind, don't you see how much that reinforces my point about Socialism? Even CEOs (who, operating as employees of the directors and the business owner, presuming they themselves aren't the owner) end up unduly suffering under Capitalism. It would be inherently better to either have that work divided up among the entire business, assuming we're talking about Market Socialism, or to be made irrelevant, most preferably by a decentralized, bottom-up form of planned Socialism. If even the people commonly seen as the top-dogs of society are getting brutally fucked, then an egalitarian, democratic economic model is exactly what's needed to fix that, for everyone.

That's fair. 34% of business owners don't have a retirement savings plan (compared to the national average of 25%) and 65%-85% of their worth is usually tied to a single asset. This asset is the business your chair making co-op is set up to do. Remember, it's a widely known fact that co-ops really struggle to acquire the money to build the co-op, and while steps are being taken to rectify this, it's still a major con for sure.

So to summarize, in order to provide the initial funding to your chair business, somebody sacrificed their life savings. So the expectation of owning the business in question is reasonable.

You make a fair point, but we could simply do away with that question by adopting some form of a democratic economic model. It'd mitigate the wholesale strain Capitalism creates - which exists for everyone, as you've shown with your sources - by a huge magnitude.

Capitalism isn't against it. I'm a Capitalist. I love worker co-ops. I wish there were more. Good thing they're growing in number. The amount of co-ops in the bloody Capitalist US have doubled in the past decade, and the growth isn't stopping there. There are some 12 billion baby boomers out there that own a business. 40% of all co-ops start as a result of a priavately owned business selling the asset to the workers. And with the baby boomers businesses beginning to be up for grabs, 70% of them are expected to switch hands.

The future is bright.

I understand Capitalism isn't against it, and I know you're definitely not, but worker cooperatives are only a bandage solution to a gaping wound; if the economy's still oriented in such a way that private ownership of the means of production is still the primary mode of economics, rather than worker or social ownership, then too many people are still being unduly screwed, even if worker cooperatives are rising in number. Given the fact that Capitalism tends to produce way too much excess, as well (which, again, could be largely avoided with decentralized, bottom-up economic planning or even somewhat avoided through Market Socialism), we're seeing ecological collapse at a rate unseen before that requires drastic - not gradual - change to combat.

The future may be bright, but we need to work fast to ensure it stays bright.

[Torrocca]

Unrelated, but this, along with Socialist Monopoly, are definitive proof that Capitalism definitely rewards innovation rather than stifle progress in favor of rehashing the same tired thing over and over and over again:

[West Leas Oros 2]

Unrelated, but this, along with Socialist Monopoly, are definitive proof that Capitalism definitely rewards innovation rather than stifle progress in favor of rehashing the same tired thing over and over and over again:

(Image)

Peak Capitalism. How will communists ever recover?

[Kowani]

Unrelated, but this, along with Socialist Monopoly, are definitive proof that Capitalism definitely rewards innovation rather than stifle progress in favor of rehashing the same tired thing over and over and over again:

(Image)

“Capitalism rewards innovation.”
>>The Video Game Industry

[Dumb Ideologies]

Unrelated, but this, along with Socialist Monopoly, are definitive proof that Capitalism definitely rewards innovation rather than stifle progress in favor of rehashing the same tired thing over and over and over again:

(Image)

“Capitalism rewards innovation.”
>>The Video Game Industry

Triple Ayyyyyyyyyyy

[Cekoviu]

Unrelated, but this, along with Socialist Monopoly, are definitive proof that Capitalism definitely rewards innovation rather than stifle progress in favor of rehashing the same tired thing over and over and over again:

(Image)

“Capitalism rewards innovation.”
>>The Video Game Industry

Seeing as we still don't have Half-Life 3, I think this may be unironically true.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Do any of yall support accelerationism? I have been looking at it more here recently as an alternative to violent insurgency... possibly supported through the use of mass strikes

[VoVoDoCo]

“Capitalism rewards innovation.”
>>The Video Game Industry

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Because I don't think it makes sense. Are you saying the entire industry lacks innovation? Going from Pong 2 GTA V required no innovation? Using recycled vertical focused software and Rampage to the Rockstar Advanced Gaming Engine require no problem solving? Anybody with an elementary education could have kick-started the VR Revolution?

I don't think you actually believe that. I think you're using the leftist alternative definition of the word innovation, which happens to be ultra utilitarian. It's either simply not Innovation, or at the very least not worthwhile Innovation, unless it increases the amount of food, medicine, or housing.

But here's the thing, it does. The U.S. game industry has 2,457 companies supporting 220,000 jobs. Employees in the industry earned an average of $97,000 per year, nearly double the average U.S. household income. And with employment in the industry increasing by 2.9% annually, and with those statistics being three years old, those numbers are most definitely bigger by now.

[-Ocelot-]

Do any of yall support accelerationism? I have been looking at it more here recently as an alternative to violent insurgency... possibly supported through the use of mass strikes

How do mass strikes contribute to accelerationism?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Do any of yall support accelerationism? I have been looking at it more here recently as an alternative to violent insurgency... possibly supported through the use of mass strikes

I support pretty much all forms of accelerationism. Bring on the Boogaloo at this point.

[VoVoDoCo]

Okay, so, we have all this laid out, in addition to what I've brought up. And you've brought up valid points regarding overtime work and so on.

With that in mind, don't you see how much that reinforces my point about Socialism? Even CEOs (who, operating as employees of the directors and the business owner, presuming they themselves aren't the owner) end up unduly suffering under Capitalism. It would be inherently better to either have that work divided up among the entire business, assuming we're talking about Market Socialism, or to be made irrelevant, most preferably by a decentralized, bottom-up form of planned Socialism. If even the people commonly seen as the top-dogs of society are getting brutally fucked, then an egalitarian, democratic economic model is exactly what's needed to fix that, for everyone.

70% of them said owning a small business is the best job they’ve ever had. Ninety-four percent of small-business owners say they are at least somewhat successful, 87% say they are at least somewhat satisfied with being small-business owners, and 84% say they would still become small-business owners if they had to do it all over again.

In other words, business owners don't make victims of themselves. Despite their hardships they prefer the system that grants them Independence. Why rescue them from a hardship that they not only bring on themselves, but feel is worth the struggle?

You make a fair point, but we could simply do away with that question by adopting some form of a democratic economic model. It'd mitigate the wholesale strain Capitalism creates - which exists for everyone, as you've shown with your sources - by a huge magnitude

What practical way can you fund your, as we all know, very hard to finance co-ops in a way that simply couldn't happen under capitalism? Remember, the EL requires an initial investment. Simply claiming that some sort of democratic economic model could ignore the question of initial investment is false.

I understand Capitalism isn't against it, and I know you're definitely not, but worker cooperatives are only a bandage solution to a gaping wound; if the economy's still oriented in such a way that private ownership of the means of production is still the primary mode of economics, rather than worker or social ownership, then too many people are still being unduly screwed, even if worker cooperatives are rising in number.

That's very vague. For 100000 years, people lived on essentially $2 a day. Then 250 years ago the Industrial Revolution happened in incomes, life expectancy, calorie intake, all escalated to levels never before imagined. So the fact that you could imagine people being slightly better off if you were in charge of things isn't convincing enough to me.

Given the fact that Capitalism tends to produce way too much excess, as well (which, again, could be largely avoided with decentralized, bottom-up economic planning or even somewhat avoided through Market Socialism), we're seeing ecological collapse at a rate unseen before that requires drastic - not gradual - change to combat.

Capitalism is no longer antithetical to ecology. A Private Industry, perhaps with some subsidies I don't know, develop the Net Zero coal plant in Texas. They plan on building 300 more. If countries like India adopted this Net Zero technology, CO2 production predictions could be cut almost entirely. These net zero plants are just as expensive as the unfriendly plants they government-subsidized.

Working with the Risk Takers, innovators, and Property Owners is how you solve issues.