/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>54054757
>Marx never even described what "communism" is supposed to be
He described it as stateless at the very least.
Why are you even debating me on this? Ask your fellow cumrades, they know I'm right.
Socialism is the statist form which comes after capitalism, and eventually the state will "wither away" leading to communism.
It's delusional religious cult thinking, but it's what they believe.

>You've never read a book in your life, have you?
Are you actually a communist? Then I KNOW you haven't read a single thing.
You bootlicking manchildren are the biggest pseudointellectual frauds on planet earth.

>I have arguments, you have Down Syndrome.
You're a leftist, you have downs by definition.

>>49292866
You people are in a religious cult and fight against your own economic interests.
Reality is staring you right in the face yet you continue to believe in complete fucking nonsense lmao

Imagine living your life as a statist/corporate bootlicker.

>You have been flagged for PDT

>>25856957
Marx required that only “socially necessary abstract labor” be embodied in a commodity, but this is just window dressing. Wouldn’t the social necessity of something be on a continuum from useless to extremely useful? Why would there be a hard break between “socially necessary” and “socially unnecessary”?

Spending ten hours piling up dirt could be considered not “socially necessary” and thereby of no value. But the whole concept breaks down when comparing something of little value to something of much value. For example, spending ten hours putting together a box would be considered “socially necessary,” and by this theory the box would embody ten hours of labor. But would that box be worth twice as much a computer that took only five hours to build? By what possible means do we address how “socially necessary” different types of labor are and how valuable they should be considered? And if they are valued differently, shouldn’t the person whose labor is valued higher earn a higher wage? And regardless of their income, shouldn’t they be allowed to invest any money that they don’t need or want to use on consumption immediately?

Quite obviously, the amount of labor put into a product is irrelevant to its value. No one thinks this way when mulling over a purchase, because it’s superfluous to their decision. The value of a product is its subjective value to the end buyer on the open market.


>>25856962
True.