Exploitation

A lot of people seem to think the marxist idea of exploitation is a moral argument. This isn't the case.
Strictly speaking, the exchange between worker and capitalist is "fair" when seen as an isolated case - the worker gets money worth his value (i.e. means to survive and the cost of his labor's reproduction) and the capitalist pays that value. That the capitalist gets more value than he pays into the worker is not inherently "unfair", it's just the source of expanding value. It's the consequences of that law of value that screw over the worker, the consumer, and ultimately the whole system, in the long term.

wtf i'm a dirty communist now

Too bad we dont have a mutualist flag here because thats what i think you are getting at

Trips of truth. Too bad you are ultra egalitarian and want to destroy my culture and people.

No, you're just bad at economics.
>No bump for you

Have you read capital or any work on marxist economics?

Ok and your solution is what? Eliminate the capitalist's profit motive? Why would they continue to engage in economic activity at that point?
>inb4 muh altruism, muh duty to the proletariat.
Communism only works when it is purely voluntary, which means it can never work as the economic system for a nation state.

>Why would they continue to engage in economic activity at that point?

Do you think communism is just capitalism but the state steals all the money?

What would it take to get you fucking faggots to admit your socialist pipe dream DOES NOT FUCKING WORK?

correct, but if every employee gets exactly what he/she is worth, most businesses won't make profits or prices will be too high, most businesses were already outsourcing labor to the east due to currency exchange benefits, now they are moving totally towards machination, so Marxism won't be even relevant anymore

Name one time when wage labor, the law of value and commodity production have been abolished. Thats what I consider to be socialism If you think otherwise you are essentially saying you know what I think better than me.

Central planning does not fucking work. Get over it.

Large companys do central planning and they don't suffer from any calculation problems.

No communism is a system where the workers own the means of production (factories an sheit) in this way society becomes like a company where each person owns an equal amount of stock. The problem occurs when individuals refuse to contribute while still benefiting from the labor of others. This leads to the requirement that any communist like state requires an authoritarian central government to enforce participation through violence and intimidation. That much centralized power inevitably leads to corruption and nepotism forcing the society to either devolve into a pure autocracy or to economic ruin, either way the glorious communist ideals get abandoned out of necessity.

Real communism has never been tried, because real communism only works if it is 100% voluntary. This works on a small scale (communes) but it inevitably fails when it is applied on a national scale

>No communism is a system where the workers own the means of production (factories an sheit) in this way society becomes like a company where each person owns an equal amount of stock

Thats not the whole idea but close enough.

>The problem occurs when individuals refuse to contribute while still benefiting from the labor of others.

In lower phase communism you get exactly what you put into society. You put in 1 hour of labor you get a good that tooks 1 hour to make.
In higher phase communism it isn't a problem because of material abundance. People would work because they want to not to support themselves.

Unfortunately for you, at the macdonalds next door I can get a burger for less than 3$.

Yeah. they are producing at a lower Cost of production. They are also Producting below SNLT.

Maybe, in a hypothetical post scarcity society where only voluntary labor is needed for survival communism becomes viable. Unfortunately we live in reality where scarcity exists. Capitalism is the most efficient means of resource distribution when resources are limited.

In lower phase you work for one hour and get a good worth one hour. In higher phase a lot of the economy is automated and The labor we still do need would be done simply because people want to do something with their life.

Well, I guess when we develop the technology to fully automate menial tasks we can revisit the idea of communism, until then adopting communism with a central government is societal suicide

what about lower phase.

You mean they're more efficient? How dare they.

...

When we develop super automation there won't be gommunism I can tell you that for a fact. Net drain losers (like OP) will be exterminated as there just won't be a reason to keep using them for menial labour anymore.

Did I say that producing more efficiently was bad?

>Karl (((Marx)))
Opinion discarded.

>because he was a jew everything he said was wrong and I don't need to prove it
ebin

You imply it's not possible.

Trying to implement full communism in lower phase is suicidal, a better alternative would be national capitalism or national socialism. Where essential services become nationalized and technological advancement is the explicit goal of society. Such a system must reject altruism however as being destructive to society. Altruism only works in a fully communist post-scarcity society. This system could provide a transition through state property into the abolishment of all property. The only difficult part is knowing when society has reached post-scarcity because that is the trigger to dissolve all government and implement true communism

It is. They produce below the average productivity and thus are able to sell for a slightly lower price and make super profits.

Why would the system I described not work?

Sadly I believe this is the most likely future. Unless a communist revolution were timed precisely to seize the means of production the moment full automation is developed. Game theory states that the most logical action for the economic and political elite is to eliminate the majority of the population who are no longer necessary.

Welcome to the real dialectic materialism boyo, neo-feudalism coming soon.

Because you are neglecting administrative overhead.
You propose a system where 1 hr labor can be exchanged for a good which took one hour to create. The problem is that value is subjective. Meaning your system requires a central authority to dictate value. The very existence of this authority becomes a resource drain while not contributing to the society. So the actual exchange ends up more along the lines of this: trade 1 hr labor for a product which took .9 hrs to build, the lost productivity goes to the central authority. Now I admit this isn't any worse than capitalism in its current form, but it isnt any better either. And the fallibility of the central authority leads to economic instability. For example say the government decides a pair of boots is worth 2 hr labor, but it actually costs 3. The difference in value leads to surpluses and shortages. In a free market system, the system is self correcting and the price of a good always adjusts to reflect it's value.

They do suffer from problems all the time, why do you think companies lose market share to competition or go bankrupt? Not to mention that in practice central planning requires a centralized bureaucracy with the power to dictate production, thus expanding the role of the state, even as the ultimate goal is supposedly a stateless, classless society.
Marxism-Leninism is a self contradictory pile of garbage.

The goverment doesn't decide how much labor a pair of boots is worth. They look at how much labor on average it takes. Of course some has to be taken off the top of every trade to repair mashines and provide food and shelter to those who cannot work at all.

Wewlad. So companies lose market share and fail soley due to calculation errors? No other reason. Marxism-leninism does not advocate a bueracracy. It in fact advocates replacing the bueracrats with workers who work for society the state then withers over time. I am not a marxist leninist because I beleive that when class is abolished the state will wither away as well but you are distorting the theory.

>They produce below the average productivity
How can they do this when the price of my burger meat is coded into reality by Karl Marx? Surely it can't be that burger meat price is also market determined.

>the government doesn't determine the value, it just determines the value
Sneaky jew nigger, shaking my head that I wasted my time on you.

>those who cannot work at all.
And here is where it starts to fall apart.
In a scarcity based society such as ours. When resources are allocated through a lense of altruism (to each according to his need) the incentive for higher achievement becomes erroded. The central authority is forced to decide who must work and who doesn't have to. This decision must be enforced through violence which translates to basically slavery. Remember the old soviet saying "I pretend to work, you pretend to pay me". The system you propose is still viable, it is just inefficient. More inefficient than capitalism.

The value of a burger is determined by the average amount of time it takes to create one (C+V+S). If you manage to use capital or new machines to produce below average you make more profits in the short term until everyone else catches up and the value of the product falls. Value and price aren't the same thing. Price fluctuates around value when supply and demand get envolved. Say there are 2 industrys. Yo-Yos and Jelly beans. If demand for jelly beans goes up then the price goes up. However soon more capital and labor will be invested in jelly beans and the price will fall back down to the value determined by C+V+S. Constant capital (the value of all raw materials and machines) Variable Capital (wages) + surplus value (value created by workers that is more than the value of the wages)

Anyone who can work has to work. Its not each from each according to abililty to each according to need yet. If you work more hours, work faster or do more skilled labor you can get more goods. How is tat not an incentive.

I should have said: "they are not just pulling numbers out of thin air they are looking at reality"

No shit. Communists are almost always the ones who think this way though now lol it's all a matter of good and evil as taught by their humanities department

I said its NOT a moral argument. Read my post again.

But 'screw over' sounds like a moral argument.. because it is. Because you are left with a rigid, inefficient system sterile of incentives, so you end up spending more resources for shittier product, eliminate the diversity of products, with operations conducted by people who aren't working by their own choosing and aren't working as well as they would if they were incentivized.
The whole concept of capitalism is that smart, hard working people are incentivized by people with more money who will give them some, to do a good job at providing a service or product, at a lower price or higher quality than that worker over there being incentivized by that guy with more money who will give him some to provide a service or product of quality and low price.
Communism eliminates choice of work, choice of product, incentive, quality and efficiency of resource use.
They have conducted numerous studies showing how the socialist nations had workers who produced less, produced less quality, and produced less per currency unit than is done in various free market societies.
It's just a shitty system that literally does rely on a moral feely argument.
If you believe in socialism and communism and have not looked into these factors then you are a fool. No intellectually honest person can review the outcome and give consideration to the freedom of movement and the literal oppression (as opposed to the oppression that exists in some abstract sociological sense), and still come out saying socialism and communism or any top down collectivist system is more efficient or allows for similar levels of autonomy than the free market.

t. kid who hasn't worked even a day in his entire life

Who defines the ability to work? Capitalism does not have this problem because work is not explicitly mandatory. Those who cannot/choose not to work are not the states concern. They must rely on the charity of others (which historically has been sufficient to provide those who truly cannot contribute) or they starve. Government altruism and the false notion of egalitarianism are the 2 fundamental flaws in western civilization. I am a master of electrical engineering with an IQ of 140, I am not equal to some Alabama redneck who cooks meth and married his sister. Why should we be treated as equals?

Its not a moral argument. Exploitation is an explanation of an aparent contridiction in the LTV richardo and smith couldn't solve. Its was simply an awnser to the question "where does profit come from". It fits into a much larger explantion of the innerworkings of capitalims and eventually a explantion of why it is unstable and will eventually fall. Communism isn't s state of affrairs to be established but rather a real movement to abolish the present state of things. Its not a system but rather a prediction about the sort of society that will come after capitalism.

"C+V+S" is not "the average amount of time it takes to create one", by your own description, and "Constant capital" is not constant, is also market determined. Variable wages are also obviously market determined meaning everything in your "objective" baseline is subjective. Plus your math makes no sense as, by your own logic, S would be V-C, meaning what you've written is C+V+(V-C)=2V.

These things are mesured in value not price. You can break all capital into another C+V+S. Wages don't matter in this equation in fact you can break it down even further to.
Value of costant capital+ value produced by workers.

Why would surplus value be wages - the value of capital?

>So companies lose market share and fail soley due to calculation errors?
Yes, although it's usually not the only problem that companies experience.
>It in fact advocates replacing the bueracrats with workers who work for society the state then withers over time.
So you replace the bureaucrats with new bureaucrats? Central planning on the scale required by a Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat requires a massive state bureaucracy, what they want to call it and whether the bureaucrats used to be proles is irrelevant.
>I am not a marxist leninist
Then why defend their bullshit? Marxist-Leninists are the narutofags of leftist politics.
>you are distorting the theory.
If I have a theory, and actual experimental data to go off then I am going to trust the experimental data. Such is the case with Marxism-Leninism. What the theory says is almost irrelevant when every time it is applied it deviates from the expected results in the same way.

>Yes, although it's usually not the only problem that companies experience.

care to share some evidence

...

why are you so against money? it's just a commodity of exchange

I'll never have a happy beautiful white wife and kids because I'm just a spic, it's not fair, I just want to live happy until I die in a nice upper middle class suburb