If the workers in a factory did not create the means of production themselves how are they having their surplus labor...

If the workers in a factory did not create the means of production themselves how are they having their surplus labor stolen?

Because communists are retarded.

There is no such thing as "surplus labour". You either work or you don't. You hire out your only useful thing (your brain plus hands) in exchange for pay. What you do or what tools you you can never be determined by yourself, otherwise it defeats the purpose of you being hired.

Marx was a pie in the sky retard who never worked a day of physical labour himself, and when he got a servant girl pregnant, he kicked her to the curb.

Yeah, I could never figure out why they always talk about seizing the means of production, instead of buying some means of production.

>buying some means of production.
Or better yet built it

Think of it this way: You work for eight hours each day and your labor generates one dollar of value each hour. Like other machinery, you require maintenance to function without breaking down; this is the reproduction of labor power and the capitalist pays you three dollars a day to do it in your spare time. In effect, you are only working for yourself for three hours per day; the rest of your workday is spent paying the capitalist for the privilege of working for him. Oh, and the final value of the product you create is the sum of the capital used to make it: Living capital, the only capital that creates value rather than just passing it on, which is your labor value(1$ per hour) and whatever other labor that went into it such as transport, and the non-living capital(raw material, wear and tear on machinery, etc).

Spirit of the times. Workers earned far too little to purchase machines that could compete with capitalists on their own, and even if they banded together to do it, they'd get violently repressed by the capitalist establishment anyway. Remember, this is from a political climate where strikers could get mowed down by machine guns.

>me
>live with my girlfriend, mom, dad, brother, his girlfriend, sister and her husband
>also, 3 kids (and more coming) here
>we all live in a large 4 bedroom house, on a 32 acre property, with an additional guest house and 2 cottages (1 is my man cave)
>house was paid off in 1998, so all of our living expenses is low
>we all work and we all pitch in 30% of our annual income to a family pool
>it averages to $104k a year
>we've done this since 2011
>so it's close to $610k now
>this excludes each of our own savings, properties and assets in general
>this excludes extended and in-law's family pools (about 6 other ones)
>we've done this for 4 generations
>we have never experienced debt
>renting and mortgage doesn't really exist with us
>it boggles my mind when people go in to massive debt, renting and/or have a 30 year mortgage
Just a little anecdotal, personal fact of me.
Oh yeah, we are brainlets!!!!!!
(none of us ever went to college, we all work in agriculture, transportation and law enforcement)

>Buy stock
>Become owner
>Now owns means of production
There ya go

This is a good example of someone who does not recognize the difference between living and dead capital, or the difference between surplus labor and surplus exchange value, not to mention the difference between management(labor) and the extraction of surplus labor(not labor) and the insistence on profit and accumulation that drives capitalistic society.

Think of it this way. Any person, given a choice of employer, would of course choose to work for himself. The only reason that he would work in another's employ is that he is making more working for someone else than he would working for himself. Not at all difficult to see, if your IQ is above room temperature. And, if the only thing which creates value is labor....why do they need any means of production?

The phenomenon of being unable to work for oneself is known as proletarization; capitalism requires a large base of proletariat to function, after all. It was not always the case, but modern society has developed in such a way to make wage labor omnipresent. This can for example be seen in the enclosure movement, in which small farms and common land were consolidated into larger estates, impoverishing the peasants but enriching the aristocracy. Another reason why working for yourself is impossible is the immense output specialized machines are capable of - expensive ones that most people can't afford. A shitty chairmaker working for four hours to make a chair that a normal chairmaker would only need one hour to make does not make a chair that's four times more valuable, even if he used four times as much labor. This is because labor value is based on the 'socially necessary labor time', or the amount of time a typical worker in typical conditions working typically hard takes to produce a commodity. If a power loom lets weavers weave fabric in half the time as a hand loom, then the labor value of fabric is halved even if weavers using hand looms take just as long as before. The actual value of the fabric isn't quite halved though, since the means of production are dead capital and pass on some of their value to the fabric as well. Or as another example, the value of my post is no greater than yours even though all you did was copypaste the same goddamn quote while I hand-typed mine.

Wow red really let himself go.

fpfb

...

Umm....have you ever had a job? You are apparently quite lacking in intelligence and knowledge, but mistakenly believe your ignorance to be wisdom. I'll explain it to you. Let's make believe you make baseball bats, by hand. You can make 2 a day. OR, you van invest, and buy a lathe, and make 10 a day. OR, you can work at a factory, where you run some equipment which makes 200 bats a day. For this, your compensation is the equivalent of 5 bats a day. Far more than the 2 you made on your own. You are quite silly, if you really knew what you were talking about, you would save up or borrow some money, buy some means of production, and get rich. At my company, the business made 6% profit, BEFORE taxes. Our payroll was 35% of sales total. We also paid about 40% of our profit out in income taxes. So, 3.6% left. One tenth of what payroll cost. The value of my most is many times more valuable than yours, because someone pays me a lot of money to run his factory, and you are whining that you need more welfare because no one will pay you for your knowledge. In fact, I am very careful about screening out potential employees with your attitude, and if some get through the interviews and I fail, I rectify the mistake and fire him ASAP.

Fuck you bootlicker. The owners of the factory don't do jack they just sit on their ass and collect all the money while paying the laborer a fraction of what their time, energy, and work is worth. Without the workers that owner would have absolutely nothing, he'd just have a shitty empty factory because his fat porky trust fund ass can't do anything skilled. The laborer gets a fraction of the wealth generated when he does 90% of the work, the only thing the capitalist swine provides is the building and machinery. That's 10% of the work maybe, but he gets 99% of the profit. Keep sucking daddy dollars cock in hopes you might make it big one day while you get fucked working your ass off 9-5 while your boss sits on the couch watching fucking maury or whatever and makes millions.

If you cannot explain your own position using your own words then perhaps you do not actually understand your own position.

Lel this sounds like the guy copied a problem from his microeconomics textbook

do you own the means by buying stock? Can you fire or modify the production? or at least take your share of production whenever you want?

No, stocks are a ponzi scheme for minority holders

the quintessential shitty lefty meme

What happens to customer service in communism?

Or to put it simply Conrad, only living labor can actually create value. The value of dead labor, labor that has already been done such as tools and raw materials, can only be transferred into the produced commodity.

>NO

>when he does 90% of the work,
No the machines do most of the work

>When you don't understand how arguments work so you continue to beat a dead horse.

They aren't even this thought out with their memes.

The machines do no work - even if all the worker does is push a button, that button-pushing is all the labor that goes into a product. Obviously, that means very little labor value goes into the product, which ties into the tendency for the rate of profit to fall over time, but that's digressing a bit. Mind you the value of the machine's wear and tear is represented in the labor value of the final product, but it is merely dead labor, transferred and not created.

Replying to a commie..do you have real discussions with the mentally retarded in real life too?

No matter what, Free Enterprise still comes around to even the most communist of countries, for example China, Russia, and other former communist/socialist countries. If not, then the exiles will come to America for a better life and leave their fucked up shithole of a country.

Looks like Capitalism and Mixed economies always beats Socialism and Communism. Them's the facts. It's hilarious that the autistic commie losers want communism and socialism since it benefits their lazy asses and adds no incentive to work at all.

Other workers created it.
Then another capitalist uses the equipment to extract surplus value from a different set of workers.

>the capitalist used money to buy the factory

Where did the capitalist get his initial money? Ah, yes, by stealing surplus labor from some other work force.

Exceot most people cannot and will never have the capital to work for themselves. In fact, if everyone ran their own business, the economy would collapse. Nothing would get done. This is just a cope out none argument. Typical bullshit word game spewed by capitalist jew dick suckers.

You've been paying attention to your commie liberal college professor, I see.

The idea that communists are all lazy bums who want welfare is just right wing projection. You know you'd do it if you could, so you assume everyone else would too. Socialism is about wanting to live a dignified life for oneself instead of slaving away for some undeserving overlord.

PS: The idea that free enterprise is incompatible with socialism is silly. It's incompatible with full-on central planning for everything-style socialism, but market socialism is a thing and has been for a long time.

You're really wasting your time with these dickheads. They yap and yap about being replaced by third worlders, yap and yap about hsving all their old values subverted, yap and yap about religions dying, yet they cannot understand that the economic system and the relations of production under capitalism is cause of their woe. They're brainlets.

Honestly, commies, try to bring your idea into the world. Try to get the people you need to tow your rope. What's missing to motivate them? Capital. Get back to me on why it's worthless.

>the owner doesn't invest in the business
>the owner doesn't take the risk of his business failing and having to pay his debts while the worker has no liabilities at all and is free to go
>the owner isn't the person who can single handedly destroy the company if he even dares to say/do anything controversial
Have you ever worked a day in your life?

>The idea that communists are all lazy bums who want welfare is just right wing projection
They want the means of production without creating them

>The idea that free enterprise is incompatible with socialism is silly. It's incompatible with full-on central planning for everything-style socialism, but market socialism is a thing and has been for a long time.
This.

The means of production was created by workers in the first place.

Just like solving maths problems can help you memorize and understand how maths works, putting actual words to, well, not paper but bits and bytes, helps your understanding of theory. Of course, praxis is another thing entirely, but praxis is still informed by theory, otherwise it's just angry shouting.

This is the funny part of it. China is a crazy case for anyone that hasn't looked into it. They set up those "free market regions" along the coast and fucking EXPLODED. Most economists put them in the category of state capitalism at this point, which is closer to fascism than actual communism.

So are the factory workers going to pay the workers that created them?

Also, holy shit starts the sentence with "fuck you bootlicker" while believing in one of the most authoritarian ideologies ever. The quintessential mentally ill lefty

I may be right wing, but that is not my reason for the statement.

I'm saying that with Free Enterprise, an individual has the right to have individual initiative, run a business, and own capital if they wanted to. Mixed Economies work the same, except government can get involved in order to Balance Public and Private sectors.

All Communism and Socialism seems to be is this: The Losers are not willing to risk like entrepreneurs and therefore wish for everyone to be at their level since they can't bring themselves up to improve Themselves and the consumers. The difference is that Socialism tries this ideology through peaceful autism; Communism, however, tries with violent autism.

That is why I would trust a U.S Government book over some random commie spewing asinine slogans about the proletariat and the bourgeois and whatever the fuck he/she says.

If it indeed helps anyone, why in the hell were Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, and all but Hong Kong mostly badly aged shitholes. You tell me, Icelandic user.

Sounds like playing with money and speculation and not doing any actual physical labor. Pay your debts bootlicker telling me if I've ever worked from fucking Greece and your 60% unemployment rate.

Ain't that the truth.

Your sentence doesn't make sense.
What are you trying to say?

It is a crazy case. It claims to be communist and is actually something else. Perhaps their views might be as slanted as their eyesight?

literally retarded

They are still performing labor

If you own a lemonade stand and farm, and you make the workers grow and harvest lemons, grow and harvest sugar, mix them together, whoever owns the farm is still exploiting them for their labor if they (the owner) get to keep some profit.

...

bugmen.

The fundamental failures of Marx's economic theories that he developed (with plenty of retarded inspiration) are numerous, but one that seems relevant here is that labor is not value. Feelings do not put bread on the table, and the emotional and sentimental aspects of labor have no direct correlation to the value of a service. For instance, you do not fix a computer/car by simply wishing or wanting it so, it doesn't matter how many hours it takes to fix it, in reality the value derived is not someone else laboring but the fruits of the labor reaching a certain value. It's why free enterprise allows for so much success: you can make an offer, and I can decline it and choose in my best interest.
People, including you and me are greedy. That does not make profit usurious. Investments since their advent have been and remain the most steady, reliable, and equitable means to amass and build wealth. You cannot know how much your labor is worth, but you can approximate the value of an asset and freely trade it for profit.
Incidentally it's also why the risk of futures contracts is so high, labor is an expense, not value.

If you use someone's equipment to produce output then it's reasonable for the owner of the equipment you're using to charge for it.
In the case of normal employment, you sell your labor to a person and they buy it for an agreed upon price. Whatever you're doing with your labor isn't really a moral detail, since you've agreed to sell it for whatever price you're getting paid to begin with.

If you love gulag so much why are you using your freedom of speech?

when you communist...do you suc diccccck readily?

OP, your question is meaningless. It's like asking, "if my dog's name is Jack, how are all apples delicious?"

Whether or not workers in a factory created the means of production themselves has no relevance to whether or not their surplus value is being stolen.

>surplus labor stolen
Communist bullshit that doesn't actually exist

when you communist do you suc dick readily?

The only good economies are Capitalism and market economies. It benefits many who work. I'm sure of that, since my heart doesn't bleed for my supposed "comrades" who I never formed a relationship with.

You the one who go to gulag. I the one who put you in gulag.

Why are communists obsessed with "hard physical labor"? It's right wing men who do it anyways, every single lefty is working in some artistic/graphic design 9-5 meme or teaching social sciences. You'd think that since the majority of your group couldn't even lift a hammer in the first place you'd appreciate jobs that didn't require manual labor more. Also funny that you belittle Greece which has been ruined by socialist policies with every service been nationalized and nothing working properly. It's almost as if people who have nothing to gain and nothing to loss don't have any incentive to do their job properly or something. Crazy stuff...

heeheehee

if robots are giving us theirs "force of labor" do this mean we are stealing from robots and its their divine right to start skynet and blow up humans?

Hilariously true and I agree with this. I do hope you get out of debt, dear Greece user.

i assume you are stupid...then i think you are a stupid communist twat

>If the workers in a factory did not create the means of production themselves how are they having their surplus labor stolen?

Because their potential to seize the means of production is calculated in the equation. :^)

This is what I've been saying. Means of production are people. Communism is slavery

Even if they are getting exploited like the commies say, isn't it their choice to be exploited? Like, it should be legal to start a worker co-op pretty much everywhere, why not just do that if you don't like your deal?

See

Don't you Russian scum worship greeks/ Byzantines? Didn't they save you from migrating horde of asatics?

No wonder you're so pathetic. It's ingrained to your core. You never had a chance, bud.

>Why is theft morally wrong?

Fuck off you nihilist cunt.

not every catastrophe that wasn't created by communism was created by capitalism you retard

> It's right wing men who do it anyways, every single lefty is working in some artistic/graphic design 9-5 meme or teaching social sciences.
Maybe in Greece, but in most countries working-class people lean left-wing. In the US, unions are left-wing (although they used to be socialist/communist before Reagan). The union at the dock here where I live went on strike against the Iraq war. The newspaper they put out is anti-Trump and pro-Bernie.

"Right-wing men" are either ultra-wealthy elites like Jeff Bezos, petty-bourgeoisie like Alex Jones, or welfare white trash with IQ below 80.

I'm happy for you, really. What a smart unit.

>surplus labor
pick up a dictionary champ you're talking shit

Which things on those list weren't created by capitalism?

look^

it said stupid shit...


^IT thinks it was smart^

Why are you making threads about a show? Not politics related, SAGED.

>mfw half those were fueled by feudalism or merchantilism

really makes me think tanks

>why not just do that if you don't like your deal?
B/c this is is what happens

If a company for example Walmart which takes in around 120 billion after cogs spread it out equally each worker would make around 130,000 a year. That is with zero expenses. Giant corporations aren't mega profit cen Add in all other expenses spread out equally would be less than half that. giant corporations aren't profit centers. Also tons of their top talent would flee and it would collapse quickly.

it is a STUPID Dumbfuck

I've read a bit of Marx and God damn, it's stupid.

It's all philosophical. It's not how things actually work, and lefties treat everything he thought as a law.

The first chapter of Das Kapital is a contradiction in modern day society, and some of it was and is arguable.

How do you put a value on goods based on the labor required to make them? Some workers are slower, some are faster, some create more durable goods, the ability to make something could be dependent on skill and the ability to fail to make it.

Outside of this, since man no longer needs to labor for certain things and machines do them, how does that affect the labor cost- and wasn't the entire premise of the new Marx value because the value of things were very dynamic and changed a lot?

Commies and Marxists excuse contradictions and everything else because "it's based on interpretation", since it's philosophical. Which seems extremely retarded to use as a political system, and make laws based on.

I was working on a reply for you, but it's only half done and I don't have time to stay and chat any longer - I'm working the night shift. Have this little picture instead, it's not my words but they're good words nevertheless.

which of them were? I don't think you can blame any of those on capitalism

Damn, and look at how good life in China is now.

Take it to Sup Forums fag, Narcos isn't politics

PS: You clearly didn't understand his work if you're asking those questions. Read some of my previous posts, will ya?

Yeah you've never worked a day in your life just like your lazy hero who got hundreds of millions killed LITERAL worse than Hitler

>in reality the value derived is not someone else laboring but the fruits of the labor reaching a certain value
You're just talking in circles.

that happened in congolombia man I don't think that's a very good example. There are plenty of workers co-op funcioning fine in non-shithole countries.

>Marx wasn't preaching REAL communism, you need to read my posts to understand!

How about you specifically tell me how I'm wrong, considering this is a well documented criticism of Marx- even by famous and highly revered philosophers, economics, and politicians.

A lot better than it was under Mao.

No bad leaf go read das kapital 50 more times

>we need better schools and parks
>*builds school and park with my own hands, the only hands i have a right to*
>become bourgeoisie school and park owner
huh...

Why do you think countries go to war? For fun? To test out their weapons?

Reading Marx is completely pointless as any points or stances he makes are waved away by Marxists because his work is philosophical and "REEE IT'S JUST CUZ UR INTERPRETATION"