Question for communists

Question for communists.
If you did not actually create the means of production how are you having your surplus labor stolen?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics#Relevance_to_economics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I'm not even a communist and I can identify this as an intellectually dubious line of thought.

Especially since intellectual property laws go against the very core of capitalism. Everybody is allowed to make a Big Mac in the free market and the consumers get to decide which one is best.

>an intellectually dubious line of thought.
How?

Go finish lighting your menorah.

Don't see what intellectual property has to do with the means of production?

>being anti communist makes you a jew

>imblying you "made" your own means of production
>imblying society and tax dollars had no impact in how these means of production just fell into your lap

>>imblying you "made" your own means of production
I could have
I could have also bought them
>and tax dollars
I didn't use tax dollars

Let's see.

If I work in chair factory.

And I make the chair, from raw wood, do I made the means of production?

But it's not my factory.

just state an argument instead of doing this retarded greentext garbage

look at your post. you said nothing, explained nothing, made no assertions of any kind. all you did was vomit some random words out that have no connection to one another and then patted yourself on the ass for a job well done

Can you expand your argument, I find it interesting?

Ignore slide threads, fight for europe. Get in here (sage)

>But it's not my factory.
well why do you need the factory?
If the workers that operate the factory seize the means of production wouldn't they be stealing the surplus labor of the worker that created the factory?

>can't understand argument
>"hurdur you didnt make one!"

>imblying state and tax dollars had no role in creating the circumstances which allowed you to "make" or "buy" means of production

>>imblying state and tax dollars had no role in creating the circumstances which allowed you to "make" or "buy" means of production
Not everyone is on welfare

>imblying the only purpose of tax dollars is welfare
...?

Because I can't pay the property taxes necessary to own a legal establishment.

Some of it goes to killing its citizens
still dont know what any of this has to do with having your surplus labor stolen

> property taxes
That has nothing to do with the means of production

Who actually creates the means of production OP?

It could be anyone
The point is it wasnt the factory workers so how are they having their surplus labor stolen?

The point is that it was other workers who created factory, assembled the machine, keep and repair them and make sure the new workers are trained to use them
Fucking use your brain cells maybe

Ok so once the factory is taken over are they going to find the old workers and give them the share the capitalist was getting?

But anyone can make a burger, they're just not allowed to call it a Big Mac.

McDonalds isn't even good.

This
Surplus value also refers to the profit made when the produced thing is exchanged. Workers do not benefit from that exchange at all. It's less about "who made the means" than "who is actually working?"

>"who is actually working?"
What is work?

Workers did create the means of production.
You also don't understand the argument.
Surplus value is extracted from the workers because the workers are paid less than they produce. Profit is the surplus values.

Nah dude, you can make the cheeseburger you just cant call it the "big mac" and we do decide which is better. An most of us say McDonalds is shit.

I can't own more means of production cause I make chairs and without an establishment I can't sell them at a high enough price to own the means of production.

Uh oh, we got a strangler!

Why dont you just admit you're the jew.

>without an establishment I can't sell them at a high enough price
why cant you?
What if the owner created the means of production?
Would the workers still be having their surplus labor stolen?

"By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description"

"Labour-power, however, becomes a reality only by its exercise; it sets itself in action only by working. But thereby a definite quantity of human muscle, nerve. brain, &c., is wasted, and these require to be restored"

Work is the act of working. It's physical labor aimed toward creating a physical product.

As they take no part in the following process of good production probably not, but they can have arrangements if they're needed to mend or enlarge the existing facility
Have you actually given all of this any thought or are you just expecting people to feed you answers until you find some minor discrepancy and crown yourself king of the argument ?

The biggest mistake Marx made was identifying everything as a problem.

Why isn't moving capital around work?

>Would the workers still be having their surplus labor stolen?
If the worker using that means of production is paid less than the value his labour produces (i.e. if the owner extracts surplus value in the form of profit), then yes.
If you understood the basic argument you wouldn't be making this shitty thread.

>As they take no part in the following process of good production probably not,
Their labor created the means of production though
Their labor absolutely went into the creation of the product

the worker is nothing without a blueprint which the borgeuosuoesi provides.

What is the value of the labor he produces?

The bourgeoisie is nothing without the labour the worker provides.

Unless they have an active presence to make sure the machines are working properly and keep them working well, their part is minor compared to the people who are on the spot daily and actually create a product
Also, answer my second question dipshit

How does one know your making less than what you produce. If i mow the lawn in both front and backyard i epect to get paid 10 bucks. If i have to fix somebodys electricity i expect to get paid more, but not the same as a doctor.

Then that also falls into how well you fought for your pay. And if you feel like the job is not paying you for how you work you could go to the labor union or just quit and find a job somewhere else. Because of this competition and the possiblity that you could lose your workers, the businnes (if its a good one) will always try to please its workers.

answer this quesition
are you FBI
a)no
b)ye5

> Everybody is allowed to make a Big Mac in the free market

everybody is, they just can't all name it BigMac
BigMac is a recognizable name, associated with the specific burger

if someone makes enough crap burgers the name loses it's value, which apparently it has if you are intent on naming your burger a BigMac

if there was no value in the name, why do you want to call it a BigMac?

about tree fiddy

If anyone is curious to how a "successful" one party communist country manages a commendered economy, read up on Vietnam

Spoiler alert: It does not work very well, especially since you have to kill all the land owners.
Production is also low/corruption is always high

So its a functional system where both partys of mutually benefit. So whats the problem?

The worker is nothing without an overarching framework with which to implement his work in a beneficial way to society, which the bourgoeuoeuoseuoiesei provides. Otherwise he's just a pure individualist and possibly anarchist.

Were the workers forced to create the means of production? How would the workers assemble if not forced to under communism. Did these laborers volunteer or were they picked randomly or what? If the workers create the means of production of their own volition, will their produce be taken and redistributed to the masses? Who dictates the redistribution of wealth? Are they voted in, do "citizens" get any inormation about where their created produce gets distributed to? Who decides which people are in charge of a communist government? If a violent revolution caused a nation to restructure their government into a communist one, who decides which people lead this newly formed communist government? Is it the leaders of the revolution, cause thats not really communism its more of a stratocracy. Wtf is pure communism and how would it be introduced without overlapping into other forms of government?

>Also, answer my second question dipshit
>Have you actually given all of this any thought
yes
> their part is minor compared
Why is it minor
What if the machine they created makes the workers 10x more productive

>state and tax dollars
how is that the property of the laborer?
especially since most laborers wouldn't be paying taxes

just like today only half of Americans pay taxes

Instead of asking dumb questions, why don't you go read the wikipedia page on marxism and LTV.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics#Relevance_to_economics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

Pure communism doesn't exist because the vision is 100% impossible to implement. This is what gives every country the scapegoat of 'not real communism'

>means of production
Don't you already know? The means of production just magically appear.

>What if the owner created the means of production?
>Would the workers still be having their surplus labor stolen?
Because surplus value occurs during the exchange of commodities. It's not about who created the means of production, but who is actually using them to create commodities. The owner, who does not labor himself, takes the labor of his workers and sells it at a price higher than their wage, creating profit. The laborer, therefore, is being exploited.

Communists created everything, without a single migrant or foreigner bank.
>picture related
What did you build? Nothing. You are dead without international trade, your life is determined by companies who existed before you were born, you have no decision, your life's goal is to work for some boss, invest in some other boss' stocks and then die.

Correct link.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics

if everybody was paid exactly the same in any given business why would anybody take the risk to create his own business?

you'd have to be a retard to do all that only to see the government walk in and cut it all up into pieces.

>he owner, who does not labor himself
How would creating the means of production not be labor?

so why don' t the workers just start making companies?

Because that's how much amateur sold chairs cost.

I can't reach costumers cause there's no way for them to know my product if someone who could afford property taxes before me, already has that market covered.

Why don't Christians and Americans with their NATO army, American television don't fuck off from my country?

Well then it should be considered true communism. Because what they want can and will never be acheived.

The feels when a rebuttal does not exist for

But im asking for an answer. If they cant give an answer of how a pure communist comes into power and governs, then wtf are these retards protesting for?

Its a simple question.

How do you implement a pure communist government without overlapping into other forms of government?

Its one fucking question that ive never got a straight answer for. All you fucking commies dont even understand the doctrine in which you worship.

make us

Building companies within capitalism isn't going to solve the problems of capitalism. You're making banal strawman arguments, go read the wiki pages on Marxism, Marxian economics, and the labour theory of value. Otherwise you're just pissing in the wind. I frankly don't have the time or patience to untangle every one of your distortions.

You used a food analogy. That's the worst possible analogy for your argument. They only get copyright and trademarks, not patent rights.

Try big pharma. It leads to much bigger rip offs.

pay someone to market your product

Great argument. Really adding to this conversation. Go cry somewhere else we're talking about grownup things.

>gommie walks in and shoots the academics
just like in boland back in WW2.

True Communism was achieved many times, when Americans and other foreigners aren't allowed to sell and own land in foreigner country, but your media doesn't exists then and can't praise it, instead your shit from far and cry you can't invest.

Being commie makes you Jew as well. Interesting.

It's almost like Jews in the leaders of both Communism and the supposed Capitalism as defined by Communists.

How?, I still have to eat.

I have no production costs.

Considering the fact we reduced Jewish population and demolished all synagogues and churches. Really makes you think, while Nazi Trump is pro-Israel every day.

>Pure communism doesn't exist because the vision is 100% impossible to implement. This is what gives every country the scapegoat of 'not real communism'
Communism can only occur after socialism, which can only occur after capitalism. Notice how the USSR and China went directly from feudalism to socialism, entirely against what Marx himself described as necessary for Communism to exist. Marx envisioned Germany and Britain becoming Communist, not Russia, China, or some South American country.

The surplus is still taken from laborers in the act of exchange under capitalism. Even if the CEO himself made the means of production, if he still employs individuals and profits off of their labor, it's necessarily exploitation. That's just how capitalism works, there's no way around it in the current system. Worker co-ops are nice and all, but they're hardly a solution to the deeper problem.

>the supposed Capitalism as defined by Communist
Marx was one of the foremost Adam Smith scholars in history. He's working directly from The Wealth of Nations.

>How?, I still have to eat.
The increased prices of your chairs

There's nothing to rebuke, you're not making an argument. All you're doing is recognising the current social relations of production and then extrapolating this as some absolute truism. Pure ideology. There is nothing eternal about capitalism, one world war with nukes and we're back to barbarism.

Never heard of Etsy?

That doesnt even make sense.

What countries were pure communism.
I want sources you backward ass thinking basic bitch.

>Worker co-ops are nice and all, but they're hardly a solution to the deeper problem.
How are worker co-ops having their labor stolen?

And who do I sell those chairs that I barely can sell now?

Sorry your right i mispoke. When women and children were starving in russia because of their food famine, TRUE COMMUNISM WAS ACHIEVED!

When lwoly town peaseants were eating eachother in communist china, TRUE COMMUNISM WAS A ACHIVED!

Just admit its flawed philosphy. Here ill start first : CAPITALISM ISNT PERFECT BUT IT'S BETTER THEN STANDING IN THE BREAD LINE ALL DAY TO MAYBE GET HALF A PIECE FOR MY FAMILY.

>pure ideology
sure we are arguing ideology, but you still have no answer to it. You claim the biggest brunt of the work is done by the workers. But this claim is hollow, in that while true, their work is pointless without someone guiding all that work into a working system, the managers. What is your rebuttal to this. Why do you see the necessary work of the managers and say no, the chaotic unorganized work of the individuals is more important

See this

faite vous la paix si les gouvernement demande de fair la gerre déserter simutanerment
par se que vous haurez fait la paix

Because they operate on profit within the anarchy of the market.

Thanks for being frank.

>How are worker co-ops having their labor stolen?
You misunderstand my problem with co-ops, while they're great for the individual workers who work there, it doesn't address the overall systematic exploration inherent in capitalist exchange, which requires profit.

Why cant all the workers just start a co-op?

They only nuke where their businesses don't exist yet, like in Japan or some country like Iran, North Korea if given the chance. They don't nuke or bomb things where they have business. Competition and free trade never existed, they block pure free trade that is from North Korea and Afghanistan, especially Muslim investments into Israel. They love only trade by Jews and other capitalists, it's a Jew trade. North Korea and Iran is the purest competition, since they literally are competitors of west and what does west do? They block their money transactions, want to nuke them. Americans try to convince me that it's free trade and competition when i am working in their company flipping burgers and renting from Americans. Based on capitalistic logic i am competing and free trading when i am not competing and free trading, when they already won, that's the kind of competition they want.

So communism can only happen after socialism?

Thats such a crapshoot.

>Communism dindu nuffin, it was the socialists.

Ok so does the socialist government maintain control as communism just magically becomes the new rule?

Does the socialist government force its citizens to accept comunism?

"Hey everybody its your fearless leader here. I was think8ng you know, maybe we should change from socialism to communism. No, it'll be great! Everybody shares everything, even if thing A takes more intellect and labor than thing B. Everyboy is equall, even if youre retarded, yay. Ok communism starts tomorrow, everybody get your stuff ready for redistribution!"

This question always stumps them.

So you're admitting the state is the problem

Because you call them communist SJW scum and beat them with a stick.

Communism is when you own your own land and workers owners decide over land. That existed many times. When you are the owner you fire the boss, not other way around. Since bosses in capitalism are employed also by owners, just that owners are Jews and they use boss to not be directly involved into working process. Sometimes owners are also bosses, but they never produce anything, they just give commands and even that is told to them by lawyers, since they can't write a single piece of law based paper on their own.

>But this claim is hollow, in that while true, their work is pointless without someone guiding all that work into a working system
You are very confused. You seem to believe that there won't be specialists or guidance in a post-capitalist economy, or believe that all anti-capitalists are inherently against hierarchy.

No, the state only works under the logic of capitalism, and under that logic I should pay more or fuck off.

Whore yourself or something just get me my money or I'll shoot you.

Food is the enemy of man - Karl Marx

and those specialists/guidances time and effort is worth more than the individual labourers time and effort. the things you identify as problematic are not such. commies are so dumb