/lit/ - Literature

Whats with all those commie neets here latetly
Just get a job you lazy poorfag leeches

>>13412053
Why aren't the owners of businesses not leeches to you? They drive around in their Lambos all day living off the labour of their workforce.

"Socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor."

Man, Jeff Daniels got old

>>13412011
>commie
Wolff deals in petty-bourgeois socialism. He's anti-communist.

>That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.

>>13412011
>says he destroying capitalism
>actually perpetuates it with co-ops, markets and production for profit like a boss

"economist" lol

>>13412060
>they organize the workforce and choose who the most efficient workers and managers are, this providing more as better products and services for cheaper

>>13412358
>PhD in economics from Yale
>taught economics for all his career
>published in economics journals
>not an economist cause he doesn't agree with me

>>13412053
>says the ayncap Christian pedo NEET
We were here first.

>>13412082
He’s only ant-ML. He encourages a step that can lead to actual social revolution, a path to socialism. If you want, you can certainly cite the need for a political coup and a single party running the state in which the WSDEs he advocates ought to see full support from. He doesn’t touch on the political.
Are you a sincere MList? Does the thought of the working class having the means of production before a red state apparatus seizes power scare you?

>>13412255
>doesn’t know what a WSDE is.
The Worker Self-Directed Enterprise is a specific kind of co-op where the workers get to keep their surplus value. They are their own bosses and owners. A far cry from REI

>>13412407
>surplus value
Doesn’t exist

>>13412011
Dick...Wolff?

>>13412426
>Rich people get rich off of their virtue value
0/10
You’re one of those proud non-readers, aren’t ya?

>>13412388
>one guy appointing high-ranking managers (a task which could be done by the workers) deserves to get paid 1000x more than the workforce who actually produce, manage, and sell the products.
The thing is that this is not even your argument. Owners don't get paid the yearly wage of workers every 11 seconds because the quality of the owners labour is just so valuable to the company. Even if the owners were to appoint people who are in charge of selling the product and hiring managers, etc. which is often the case, and they did absolutely nothing of value, they would still have money coming into their bank account simply because they have a slip of paper saying they are the owner. But of course the poor lady going to food banks to feed her kids is the true moocher.

>>13412435
>workers know who the best managers are and won’t just go off of who is the most demagogueic and/or promised them the most stuff
Shiggy

>>13412446
Yes. Recruitment managers are workers. It's literally their job to find good people for the company. If the recruiting work business owners engage in is what gives business owners the right to keep all the profit to themselves then recruitment managers should be getting paid the exact same as Jeff Bezos. But they don't. Why? Because the actual value the owner brings to the company has nothing to do with how much he is paid. That only applies to the workers.

>>13412457
Who pays the recruitment manager? Who hired the recruitment manager? Why are you pretending recruitment managers are different from owners? According to you, hiring workers isn’t production and those people are leeches.

>>13412466
>Who pays the recruitment managers
You're appealing to capitalism to justify capitalism.
>Who hired them
private owners but it doesn't have to be that way
>hiring workers isn't production according to you
It is but that task can be performed by workers, as it often is with big businesses. We don't need a private owner to do it for us and then proceed to take the fruit of our labour for himself.

The point is that private ownership isn't needed for a business to function and co-ops have proven this.

>>13412494
>>13412494
>You're appealing to capitalism to justify capitalism
How are you going to take back your supposed surplus labor without being paid?
>private owners but it doesn't have to be that way
Since they hired them, are the owners not entitled to their pay, considering how many workers they hire?
>It is but that task can be performed by workers, as it often is with big businesses. We don't need a private owner to do it for us and then proceed to take the fruit of our labour for himself.
Are the owners not workers if they hire employees? What is the fruit of your labor if you’re not buying what is needed to produce what you are producing in your job?
>The point is that private ownership isn't needed for a business to function and co-ops have proven this.
Cool. Make more of them then. Hooray for capitalism for letting you do that.

>social democrats in charge of destroying capitalism
daily reminder that succdems are contras

>>13412494
Shit dude sounds like you could do this and produce cheaper products since there's no expensive owner to feed. Why aren't you starting a company to corner this obvious market?

>>13412494
I guess french peasants couldn't start a revolution either since they had help from the nobility, so they were appealing to aristocracy huh LMAO

>>13412569

Because capitalists have destroyed the free market and made laws that won't let you unionize and that define a corporate personhood that only answers to owners and managers.

That's why, mr. free market hypocrite.

>>13412060
Yeah the guy who owns the fish store I work at owns a fucking Lamborghini

>>13412569
because what would be the point without becoming the “expensive owner”? are you retarded?

>>13412568
Soc-dems enact shit like UBI. You give people the means of production and you (HOPEFULLY) ignite a social revolution. Non accumulative currency ought to follow closely to root out the corruption mechanism from —well, everywhere.

>>13412532
>How are you going to take back your supposed surplus labor without being paid?
because under socialism labor becomes directly social; the concept of surplus value doesn’t exist due to the change in mode of production thereby it is not so much reclaimed as directed to the social good

>Since they hired them, are the owners not entitled to their pay, considering how many workers they hire?
No, see below

>Are the owners not workers if they hire employees? What is the fruit of your labor if you’re not buying what is needed to produce what you are producing in your job?
The point you’re missing is that nobody disputes that owners perform a useful and valuable role under capitalism, it is just that the role is unnecessarily embodied by an often disconnected and distant bureaucracy

>Cool. Make more of them then. Hooray for capitalism for letting you do that.
cringe

>great that's awful what's the answer
>coops!
Everytime

>>13412666
Sucking the yang sauce rip monarch

>>13412011
Ummmm Wolff needs to read like cockbutt. Because Econophysics says that market socialism always leads to capitalism.

Capitalism and the corporations exist because they are the most efficient ways to aquire and concentrate wealth which allows it to be wielded and invested. In order to take economic risk there must be an individual or small group of individuals willing to take on that risk. If you spread all wealth out more evenly the Risk taking is retarded by those members who are risk averse or incapable. Socialism is inharently hobbled because of humans inability to effectively and quickly act as a collective. That is why military leadership is not a democracy.

Socialism attempts to remedy social ills with economics instead of addressing the underlying moral rot in modern society.

>>13412666
>Soc-dems enact shit like UBI
republicans in the successive administration will use this as a justification for eliminating your beloved welfare state

>social revolution
begone, liberal

>>13412388
yeah, sure

>>13412749
your point is addressed in chapter one of the communist manifesto
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007

read before responding

>>13412388
Quit guzzling corporate cum.
LCD, LED, and OLED are the only type of TVs available to buy new but they are garbage. CRT was only done away with because they are bigger and harder to manufacture. SED technology is inherently superior to LCD,LED and OLED, but never came to market because of a lawsuit. After the lawsuit was over they decided not to bring SEDs to market because LCD was already out for a few years and they didn't think people would be willing to pay twice as much for a new type of TV even if it is superior.

A modern Mercantilist USA, my form of modern mercantilism, would be better because wages would be higher, job requirements would be lower, employers would be forced to be more willing to train employees themselves thus decreasing the "need" for college and trade school, US would be more powerful by default, shit hole countries like China, India, Mexico, etc would be put back into peasantry where they belong, and people would still be able to be rich. One of the capitalist critcisms of Mercantilism was that trade is not a zero sum game but that has been proven false. Sorry Adam Smith,trade has proven to be much closer to being a zero sum game in terms of nation to nation trade than not being a zero sum game. Notice how the people who claim to say Mercantilism doesn’t work and capitalism is what made America great LOVE the two negative parts of Mercantilism – subsidies and limiting wages. USA became no1 from Europe being in ruins after WW2 and the USA exporting industry to China has weakened the USA, lowered wages, which is proof of Mercantilism being right and Capitalists being wrong.
deport all illegals and visa workers and indefinitely halt all future immigration. It would raise wages and lower the cost of housing, especially in places that need it the most like big cities.
The labor shortage or skills gap myth is propaganda that is pushed so companies can keep importing workers who work for less and have lower work standards. Something that I never see mentioned about immigrant workers is that they have lower work standards, an actual citizen can tell their employer to fuck off, visa worker has to work 16 hours a day if they are told.
AI and automation is supposed to remove tens of millions of jobs from the market in a few years, self driving cars alone are supposed to remove millions from the US market. Every extra person you bring in is going to make the damage done by automation that much worse than it has to be.
Most big cities would have a $15+ minimum wage due to supply and demand if my deportation and immigrant halting happened. Would corporate cock suckers bitch about the minimum wage being $15+ due to supply and demand with no minimum wage law increase? Of course they would! Wages are already depressed yet they are lobbying for immigrants and visa workers.
I hear conservatives say wages have to stay depressed so we can remain "competitive with places like China and India, the only reason those shit holes were able to get out of peasantry and become a threat is because the same people saying we need to keep wages depressed exported industry to China and India which gave them wealth and power and allowed them to become a threat. China now has the power to destroy the USA because the USA exported industry to them.
Mercantilist USA would have NEVER let China or any other country get better. Population might not be even half of what it is now too which would be more environmentally friendly than any other policy.

>>13412749
No point in trying to argue, the anti-corporation retards don't understand what it means to organize people and never will because they don't care to. They're infatuated with their little worlds and that's the extent of it.

>>13412011
*augments capitalism*

>>13412600
Metokur is that you?

>>13412011
whom?

>>13412389
based

>>13412389
>economics
>not a pseudo-science
what board am I on?

>>13412407
Singular ML countries have done more to advance socialism and human progress than the entirety of the global anarchist movement.

>>13412060
>Why aren't the owners of businesses not leeches to you?
Who is the leech?
The lawyer working at an enormous law firm making 200k a year + bonuses or the guy who own his own small business practicing a trade and who can barely afford to pay his wage to his employees.

The notion of "owning the means of production" is entirely absurd, especially today. Especially since if you own any computer made after 2005 you are owning the "means of production".

>>13412407
>He doesn’t touch on the political.
In what world? Doesn't he sound like he's about to cream his pants every time he talks about Corbyn?

>Does the thought of the working class having the means of production before a red state apparatus seizes power scare you?
No, it makes me laugh. I mean the thought that some "intellectuals", supposedly "Marxist", are genuinely naive enough to believe this is possible.

This is not a path to socialism. This is a path to pacification of the proletariat by making it believe that the bourgeois state can ever be its friend. It's the same old trick that has been played for almost 200 years now.

>>13412407
>>13414246
Wolff:
>Markets, suitably shaped and constrained (as they always have been) to reinforce non-capitalist production relationships (e.g. worker coop-based enterprises) could certainly comprise parts of a post-capitalist economy.
Marx:
>It is just as pious as it is stupid to wish that exchange value would not develop into capital, nor labour which produces exchange value into wage labour.

>>13412011
richard wolff is not a socialist, co-ops are capitalism

>>13413289
*tells neets he'll give them $1000/month if they donate to his campaign*
*fails and squanders your donations*

>>13412011
his reading of marx is shockingly bad. marx was not a market socialist

>>13412082
is he a syndicalist? This makes him sound like a syndicalist.

>>13414603
He's an Althusserian Marxist.

>>13412644
So what youre sayong is that a coop system lacks the economic incentives that are responsible for the functioning of a market society?

>>13412577
Well, french peasants never started a revolution lol

>>13412407
>Wolff anti-ML
In some ways he probably is, but he sure doesn't sound it here praising China lmao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6exMnvRWok

>>13412689
>because under socialism labor becomes directly social
So rather than giving an individual rewards commensurate with their performance you give them only production targets. Pat on the back if they exceed them, punishment if they don't. It worked so well in the USSR and China after all

>>13412011
So you just saw his name posted in the Lenin thread, googled a picture of him and then started this thread?

Good work, OP.

Imagine being such a brainlet that you think socialism means small businesses are the problem. You people are fucking retarded

>>13412846
>republicans...
Which is why I’m against it
>liberals want a revolution
Begone, mental case.

>>13414221
They’ve set the movement back a hundred years. Clearly the tactic has failed. Bakunin has been proven right on this issue.

>>13414246
>Corbyn
Does he? Your whole post is loopy af. Actually seizing the means of production is just the start, and I don’t really care what else Wolff would recommend if I felt it maintained some kind of cozy relationship with traditional capitalism
>>13414267
In fact I don’t believe the capitalists would stand for WSDE. I think Wolff knows they’d go to war with them like the mafiosos they are.

>>13414854
But what can one economics professor do but cite how China’s economy is going. State centralized capitalism. Wow. Like how the US would have grown if they had had a similar government. Big deal. Capitalism puts us through these stupid sprints all the time.

>>13414221
Lol anarchists btfo
>>13415400
Why cant butterfly form a coherent argument?

>>13414222
>You sure are retarded if if I just pretend IP law doesn't exist.
Wow u got me there :^)

>>13412011
*saves Capitalism

>>13414221
By making people think state capitalism is socialism?

>>13415285
Both USSR and China did give "an individual rewards commensurate with their performance", just like other capitalisms, you ignorant moron. Stalin:
>Some people think that it is possible to run the economy on the basis of equalisation. We have had such theories: collective wages, communes in production. You will not move production forward by all this. The worker fulfils and over-achieves the plan because we have piece-work for the workers, a bonus system for the supervisory staff and bonus payments for farmers who work better. Recently we have enacted the law for the Ukraine.
>In the coal industry a few years ago a situation was created when the people working overground received more than the people working in the mines. The engineer sitting in the office received one and a half times more than those who worked in the mines. The top leadership, the administration want to attract the best engineers to their departments so that they sit by their side. But for the work to move ahead, it is necessary that people have an interest. When we increased the wages for the underground worker, only then did the work move forward. The question of wages is of central importance.

>>13415295
This thread is 18 hours old.

>>13415432
Did you have a question?

>>13415473
She did nothing but delude idiots like Paul Ryan.

>>13415400
Listen to the video again, he calls China socialist multiple times. That's what I was getting at, not Wolff's praise for its growth, poverty reduction, etc., claims that even bourgeois economists are relatively comfortable making these days.

Why are anti-capitalists always shitty people?

>>13415502
Look, I’m an egoist. You really ought to look into it as a basis for reading philosophy, political theory and economics. I have no heroes, no gurus. I don’t tell people to follow this teacher here and to the ends of the Earth. Wolff has his shortcomings as does Cockshott, same as Bakunin and Kropotkin, Nietzsche and Stirner. Take what you care to and build yourself.

>>13415598
Hello liberal. I find the opposite to be true. All those fake smiling CEOs, shitty chain owners telling me to watch my minutes, those sociopathic hedge fundies driving people deeper into poverty. No it’s your bosses that are the shittier

>>13415637
I couldn't care less what particular stripe of anarcho-autist you are, because I'm not actually trying to convert you. I simply took issue with your incorrect (or at least simplistic) claim that Wolff is 'anti-ML'. Every thinker has their strengths and weaknesses and it was specifically through reading a wide range of sources - hostile and friendly - that I decided my position on China etc., so I think I'm doing fine without your advice.

>>13415670
So, general nitpicking. Fine.

>>13415637
>All those fake smiling CEOs, shitty chain owners telling me to watch my minutes, those sociopathic hedge fundies driving people deeper into poverty. No it’s your bosses that are the shittier
These people tend to eventually gravitate towards anti-capitalist behavior or thought patterns as they get older. So, as I said, it's always shitty people.

>>13415704
I don't like anarchists lying about a movement that's done incomparably more for the world is all. Call it whatever you like.

Right now it's capitalism destroying everything. Little Wolff is helpless

>>13415719
>successful millionaires and billionaires eventually turn communist.
Whuhuhhahaha

>>13415723
The attempted socialism of the USSR failed harder than the attempted republic of the USA. For whatever gains there may have been, we are still no closer to realizing the dream, now that we’re on the cusp of extinction.
More MLism isn’t going to do us any good

>>13412011
>dude, what if capitalism but there were more mondragons?

>>13415754
"Successful millionaires and billionaires" aren't on average the miserable people you previously described.

>>13415754
>still no closer
They're doing more than anarchists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6exMnvRWok

>>13412060
Labour theory of value is bunk. I agree to exchange labour for money, literally a non problem.

>>13415766
No its
>what if the bosses AND owners were gone!?
That would be the end of capitalism.

>>13415781
Chinese capitalism is doing capitalism with socialist intents. I cross my fingers with them.
Since you seem hipper to them, what is their plan for 2050? They’re going full commune then or what?

>>13415598
Because they hate success.

>>13415804
Here’s the price of your temporary success

>>13415797
Hard to tell conclusively, they seem to want to leave themselves room, doubtless for a mix of pragmatism and self-presevationism. Jack Ma wants an AI-Big Data driven command economy. Maybe we end up with Cockshott's wet dream, maybe they end up deciding something else, the debates are apparently ongoing.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1051715.shtml

>>13415797
Sounds like you want an oppressive state.

>>13415814
A higher standard of living then ever? Don't see the problem, also you going to tell the developing world not to have a higher standard of living?

>>13415637
>Wolff has his shortcomings as does Cockshott, same as Bakunin and Kropotkin, Nietzsche and Stirner. Take what you care to and build yourself.
Marx:
>For him, M. Proudhon, every economic category has two sides—one good, the other bad. He looks upon these categories as the petty bourgeois looks upon the great men of history: Napoleon was a great man; he did a lot of good; he also did a lot of harm.
>The good side and the bad side, the advantages and the drawbacks, taken together form for M. Proudhon the contradiction in every economic category.
>The problem to be solved: to keep the good side, while eliminating he bad.

>>13415851
Thank you very much

>>13415875
I obviously do not. Im suspicious of China as much as the US and any MList. I’m all for a path to non-state decentralized democracies of the people.

>>13415883
>wha? I can’t see the pages? I only know the world is an endless source of bounty. Haha.

>>13415890
Wow. Marx us literally me.

>>13415814
>our planet's
Life is a fight for life. You kill oxygen molecules just to live.

>>13415918
>kill oxygen molecules
Cringe.
We've already fucking killed everything else that could possibly threaten us your retard. We're beyond your autistic hyper-Darwinian idiocy. Maybe not for much longer with the crises we face the coming century, but still. The question is the preservation of our species and keeping our place at the top. We do that by cooperating.

>>13415793
>Labour theory of value is bunk
what's the argument for that

>>13415793
>I agree to exchange labour
Just try not agreeing. You'll be homeless begging in the streets. Slaves also agree to work for their masters you know? They have a choice to be lynched or work and they choose work. You have a choice to starve on the streets or work and you choose work.

>>13412407
>>13412433
>>13412666
>>13415400
>>13415490
>>13415637
>>13415704
>>13415754
>>13415797
>>13415891
>>13415906
have sex.

>>13416084
leave the lady alone or you're gonna have a problem with me, punk

>>13413289
>Andrew “mic off” Yang

>>13415447
What are you saying?

>>13412053
Where the fuck do you think you are, boyo?
This is /lit/.

>>13416089
dilate

>>13416073
Nobody still follows it for many good reasons; even most Marxian economists think it's stupid. There's a reason why Wolff uses a book by philosophers without any formal economic training as his basis for Marx. To name a few:
1. All industry should be 100% fair in the way that Classical economics always seems to assume.
2. All labor is measured in hours when, in many industries, it isn't.
3. Brand and advertisements seem to make a huge impact in costs, though the labour theory of value would imply it should have none.
4. During economic crises like the Depression, many products were sold for dirt cheap no matter how much effort was put in.
And 100 more. It's usually laughed at or used as a poor example of economics among professionals.

To see if the labor theory of value is true, follow the logic of automation to completion. Many who support the theory also believe that it would lead to automated gay space communism or whatever, where everything nice is available to everyone for free because of automation reducing prices. Also known as zero marginal costs.

A fully automated process that produces, say, an advanced microchip should mean the cost of the product should be cheaper. That excludes the production costs of extracting the resources which is more labor, but suppose that this process is also automated. That just leaves the labor involved in building the automation machinery and maintaining it. What should the value of the chip be?

That is dependent more than the value of the labor input, which again, can vary depending on the efficiency of the means of production. It depends on the scarcity of the factors of production relative to the demand for the product. If the factory produces more than demand, the price will fall, if it produces less than demand, the price will rise, and this should happen regardless of the labor input.

There are other kinds of edge cases. For example, the value of a product is determined by its buyers willingness to concede to a seller's naming price. If there are no buyers, the value of a product, and all the labor put into it, is effectively zero. Markets provide these signals that would otherwise be lacking in a command economy where these signals are less clear.

>>13416143
>1. All industry should be 100% fair in the way that Classical economics always seems to assume.
don't know what you mean by this
>2. All labor is measured in hours when, in many industries, it isn't.
why would it matter if industries actually measure labor in hours for value to be determined by quantities of labor-time?
>3. Brand and advertisements seem to make a huge impact in costs, though the labour theory of value would imply it should have none.
by costs you mean market prices, yeah? the LTV isn't a theory of market prices. it doesn't deny advertising/branding influences them.
>4. During economic crises like the Depression, many products were sold for dirt cheap no matter how much effort was put in.
again, you're talking about market prices.

Lol capitalism can't be destroyed

>>13416143
You're not making sense. The proper order is 1) read Marx, 2) criticize Marx.

>>13416181
>Many who support the theory also believe that it would lead to automated gay space communism or whatever, where everything nice is available to everyone for free because of automation reducing prices
The luxury gay space communism faggots don't know what the theory is, because anyone who reads Marx wouldn't be a luxury gay space communism faggot.

If you "follow the logic of automation to completion" then the """labor theory of value""" doesn't hold because it's not supposed to. Marx:
>As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value.

You could also imagine the invention of deliberately inefficient labor-intensive production practices intended to artificially inflate the labor value of a given product. How is the labor going to be measured? What about wasted labor versus productive labor. I

f production is more labor-intenstive because it is more inefficient, that does not influence the value of the product as it is eventually decided by demand. Use-value is a whole other story, but that is basically another name for demand.

>>13416216
Okay, I'll grant you that. I'm not a big student of economics btw or a Marx aficionado. But it seems you're saying that exchange value will go down when labor value decreases, which means that things should get cheaper in terms of their cash value?

>>13416217
>You could also imagine the invention of deliberately inefficient labor-intensive production practices intended to artificially inflate the labor value of a given product. How is the labor going to be measured? What about wasted labor versus productive labor.
that's why value is determined by the average amount of amount labor required in the reproduction of a commodity (i.e., socially necessary labor time), not the particular amount of time certain firms take.

>>13416199
>1
I meant that the labour theory of value assumes that there is perfect competition always: no monopolies, no capitalist on capitalist warfare, etc. Basically, it's pre-Keynesian.
>industries measure labour in hours for value to be determined by labor-time
Then we've got no markets. The quality of labor affects how much people are paid for it, and most industries work with some form of benefit for creating more stuff.
>3
However, what I'm saying here is that the value of a product is decided more from advertisements than the amount of labour put into it itself. This is more of a tributary of 1 than its own point: all a company needs to do for a product to have a certain value is for the consumer to think it does, which allows for a company to pretend a product is worth more or less than it actually does.
>4
What I'm saying here is that the prices weren't even modified by the original value, as LTV postulates. Instead, no matter a product's original value, it would sell at the same or similar price.

>>13416246
>I meant that the labour theory of value assumes that there is perfect competition always: no monopolies, no capitalist on capitalist warfare, etc. Basically, it's pre-Keynesian.
well it only purports to apply to freely reproducible goods, so commodities produced by monopolies are irrelevant.
>Then we've got no markets. The quality of labor affects how much people are paid for it, and most industries work with some form of benefit for creating more stuff.
sounds like you're just saying skilled laborers produce more value than unskilled laborers, which the LTV doesn't deny. the LTV measures value in terms of unskilled labor, to which Marx thinks skilled labor can be ultimately reduced.
>However, what I'm saying here is that the value of a product is decided more from advertisements than the amount of labour put into it itself.
if by "value" here you just mean market price, you aren't addressing the theory.
>This is more of a tributary of 1 than its own point: all a company needs to do for a product to have a certain value is for the consumer to think it does, which allows for a company to pretend a product is worth more or less than it actually does.
yeah, the theory doesn't claim labor-time determines demand.
>What I'm saying here is that the prices weren't even modified by the original value, as LTV postulates. Instead, no matter a product's original value, it would sell at the same or similar price.
you haven't established that. Marx's point is that market prices will fluctuate around values due to a variety of factors that have nothing to do with labor-time.

>>13416234
No, I'm saying that """labour theory of value""" would no longer hold after a certain point in the development of automation.

What you're bringing up is another issue, but yes, that is correct. This did happen, and it still happens, although we can't observe it direcly anymore because our currencies aren't tied to gold.

>>13412011
>*destroys capitalism*
>cant get out of that church basement
this retard cant destroy anything, he doesnt have the money, unless you donate to him goy

>>13416593
oy vey, what happened around april?

>>13416627
probably daddy got wind of thier little son or daughters creditcard donations and nixxed it.

>>13412082
That's what i wanted to say. This guy isn't for the abolition of exchange value, the State, money, delegation of power. From what vids i saw from him, he just wants a better allocation of money.
Socialism = lack of ambition.

>>13412426
>>surplus value
>Doesn’t exist
Doesn't understand surplus value. It's pretty easy thought, if you compare Capitalism with previous modes of production.

>>13414222
>The notion of "owning the means of production" is entirely absurd, especially today.
Totally absurd. You work with "my" means of production, i get the profit. Even if the means of production, machines, raw materials, were also made by workers.
If you decide otherwise, the State will be on my side anyway.

>>13416056
>Cringe.
Well, there goes any reason to believe that what you're saying isn't just resentment towards the wealthy class.

>>13416181
I don't really follow you.
I everything is automated, everything should be free, no?
Maybe there will be some limitation due to natural ressources, but if a machine could produce an infinity of microchips without any labor, and if machines producing the raw materials needed for the microchip are autonomous, the microchips value should be close to 0. If the factory produce less than the demand, just built and other automated factory without work. If it produce more than demand, the price will fall to zero.

Thus without labor, no value. Except perhaps if there are restrictions due to natural ressources. In this case, the limitation shouldn't be calculated with the amount of money everyone has, since nobody would work, nobody would have money. Perhaps production should be allocated then regarding the needs of everybody.

>>13417101
Mediocre dodge. It makes no difference anyway, if a poor guy's a socialist it's resentment and if a well off guy's a socialist it's hypocrisy. You're just trying to find a way to avoid responding to the accusation that you're a retard.

>>13417205
I'd be on board with you if you weren't a hippie faggot, which reducing what I said to "autistic hyper-Darwinian idiocy" clued me in about.

>>13417247
I'm the opposite of a hippie you spastic, not least because they're all idpol faggot fucking liberals. I'm a Marxist-Leninist. My reference to your 'Darwinism' was that it was wrongly applied. Read what I actually said
>The question is the preservation of our species and keeping our place at the top

just gib universal basic income

if I wanna read economics where should I start?

>>13418137
Thomas Sowell

>>13412060
>owners of businesses are leeches because they don’t do physical labor
Cringe

Bump

>>13418137
Not here
>>13418150

>>13412053
Getting a job literally ended my cuckservative slave phase