/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3129177

Well let me put it this way. Lets put aside any concept of forcing a system on anyone, and go along with a world of contracts and choices. It makes things simpler and de-conflates the issue away from any notion of undue coercion so that just he raw socio-economic point is at hand.

In this case the "leftist" point is basically this: Any contract between a worker and a capital owner wherein the worker is being paid for time or the labor itself, instead of a cut of the overall profits, in an unethical arrangement and should be avoided.

The Philosophical basis for this claim can in fact be stated in terms much the same as the general libertarian argument for natural property rights: When I work on something, I mix my labor inexorably with the final product and so in that way have a homesteaded ownership of it. Thus, when that product is sold or exchanged, I as the laborer who helped make it am entitled to a cut of the profit from the exchange.

When I enter an employment contract wherein my labor itself is what is being paid for over time or by salary, then the said contract basically a waiver of my homesteaded, labor-mixed property rights.

To get a little more in depth, what Marx's point was (partially) is that this system, wherein the workforce is paid for their labor and time instead of the products the helped make, is the only reason why the captialist mode of prodcutoin creates profits. The money that a capitalist saves by buying labor instead of treating all the employees as shareholders is what allows for money to be made off the top. If all businesses were essentially co-ops, then there would be no profits and all the production in the economy would end up being at-cost, as it ostensibly logically should be.

(cont.)

>>2980329
>>2980323

>mfw "the resident /sci/ economist" thinks it cost nothing to produce Linux, Wiki, Apache

>mfw you must not be a real economist if you forgot to consider that it took means of production such as computers on which to program the software, oh and TIME for fucks sake, which is a resource in the context of opportunity costs and human mortality. In the end it did coast alot to make Linux, etc, but it was release for free with the understanding that the cost to produce would be more than made up a million times over by the free use and continued modification of Linux to better the economy as a whole.


>Thats how I feel.

Yea clearly, since you didn't you're you brain. Of course, if you did use your brain you would see why capitalism is full of shit.

1. make stuff at cost without an immediate pay off, for the good of the whole community
2. the entire economic superstructure is enhanced and quality of life is increased for everyone
3. keep doing this over and over
4. U MAD when there are no mud huts to be seen and people are actually happy and have a continuously improving quality of life without the need for competition or unjust wealth concentration

FUCKING COMMUNISM HOW DOES IT WORK?

Yea, everyone pays for everyone else's usage. Troll harder niggroid.

Socialism has never been tried. All the countries that have been "socialist" in the past were really just tinpot dictatorships, and were designed to be that way from the start by the self-serving vanguardists who threw the revolution.