What are Sup Forums's thoughts on social corporatism?

What are Sup Forums's thoughts on social corporatism?

A few nights ago I made a thread on Sup Forums for naming a discord server to which I posted an invite link. The name chosen via dubs was "Communism ftw," an user joins and we end up discussing our views on socialism and capitalism. He brought up the ideology of social corporatism, which I found disturbing when I read it. After reading more about it, social corporatism sounds like a nice ideal but ultimately unrealistic (the Borg in Star Trek for example).

Something I don't understand is, in Marxist ideology, it is claimed that profit is stolen labor (Labor Value Theory). I can't wrap my head around this. Is labor not a service sold by the worker?

What are Sup Forums's thoughts?

Socialism of any kind means
1) NO profit allowed
2) NO property ownership

I can not understand how anyone could be motivated to work when they don't earn anything and they have nothing they are allowed to buy with their money.

The USSR solved the motivation problem though by pointing a gun at their heads. Sounds like the only thing that would work.

>I can not understand how anyone could be motivated to work when they don't earn anything and they have nothing they are allowed to buy with their money.
This was my train of thought. This is why I think it sounds like a utopia and not reality.
I find some of the points of social corporatism to be interesting - encouraging technological advancement, education, and intellectualism. I just don't see how some of its goals are achievable in the real world.

The fact of the matter is everyone who wants socialism or communism thinks they're going to end up doing work out of the goodness of the hearts. And something comfy too like designing soda labels on a computer, or being an important bureaucrat.

Well what happens when no one's idea of a good time is mucking around in sewage for 10 hours a day repairing pipes and treating water?

That's when the guns come out and men are forced into labor en mass. There is a reason this is a common theme in economically communist countries.

Well, LVT is supposed to demonstrate that labour is not a service sold by the worker because it isn't priced in the same way that service are.

I dunno user, its hard to help you out that one further.

FWIW in "The German Ideology", Marx describes how he thinks people should be paid. What he describes is how Wallstreet is paid.

>in Marxist ideology, it is claimed that profit is stolen labor

And actually that isn't Marx, its Proudhon who was an anarchist.

>NO profit allowed
>NO property ownership

That was Proudhon as well.

>I can not understand how anyone could be motivated to work when they don't earn anything and they have nothing they are allowed to buy with their money.

Which is also Marx's criticism of the capitalist system.

>The USSR solved the motivation problem though by pointing a gun at their heads. Sounds like the only thing that would work.

That isn't how the USSR solved the motivation problem. Their solution was far easier and more effective.

>The fact of the matter is everyone who wants socialism or communism thinks they're going to end up doing work out of the goodness of the hearts

No socialist or communist believes that, the proposition is not based on altruism of any kind.

Read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" by Robert Tressell.

I think a lot of the socialists marching in American streets don't think they're going to get sent to work in a coal mine.

I'll take a look at the book you mentioned, but the socialist youth today believe that for them, socialism is synonymous with the idea of universal income. They don't see that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

I think if people were more educated about socialism they wouldn't be so for it. Can you elaborate on how you think the motivation problem would be solved for those working as off shore oil workers who don't want to be there?

Well my point is that the 'common sense' criticisms of what Marx (didn't actually) think are almost identical to his own arguments.

The thing is Marx didn't want people to be hungry, poor or unmotivated either and he thought the capitalist system did these things.

Tressell's book is important in the UK labour movement and defines capitalist workers as "ragged trousered philanthropists", see, same rhetorical argument.

>the socialist youth today believe that for them, socialism is synonymous with the idea of universal income

Marx was actually against welfare. He thought it was a way of avoiding solving inherent problems in the system and a "sop".

> Can you elaborate on how you think the motivation problem would be solved for those working as off shore oil workers who don't want to be there?

The Marxist position would be that you'd solve it by paying them more money than they currently get for doing the same work in a capitalist system.

Marx wasn't actually a Communist (in fact he said he wasn't a "Marxist" because even in his day there were misunderstandings), there is a reason Lenin, Trotsky etc. wrote books. Its like thinking Muslims are Jews who follow the Torah. Related, kind of, but not the same at all really.

5 workers produce a 5 cars
the cars are sold by the capitalist
he takes one of the cars (value) for himself
the other 4 cars are paid to the workers
So the capitalist (profit) stole one car from the workers.
> I have no thoughts, I'm a mindless drone

A factory worker has to work six months to be able to pay for a car in full. During that time he builds an untold number of cars.

Thus his surplus value is being extracted and sold by the capitalist for his profit.

Under communism the factory would be collectively owned. If a worker wanted a car for himself hed go to his local car factory and build one for himself.

This.

I... when Americans discuss Marx it makes me want to take a shotgun and just hunt them down in the forest like giant, overfed foxes.

who paid for the resources?
Who paid for the tools?

Its why they ended up with a bunch of Trots running the show for 8 years.

They didn't know what it was, in fact I still don't think they understand how hard they were trolled by the Neocons or what any of it was about.

Its what happens when you regard certain ideas as "evil and not to be read in case they corrupt your soul" rather than "flawed but important to know about". Its puts on a smiley face and fucks you.

We're talking about political economy written by dead people, its not the Necronomicon.

It's not that simple though. The capitalist takes the risk starting production. The capitalist secures resources. The capitalist must sell the cars to to pay for capital. The workers are paid by the capitalist for their labor. How is it stealing from them if they never owned the cars, had a hand in collecting resources, and only assembled the cars?

1) I was just explaining how 'profit is stolen labour'
But you are right, the reaction of communism against capitalism, also states the factory should be owned by the workers themselves.
2)
> The surplus value of work due to organization, capital, ....
What are you trying to say.
3) I never heard about the worker go build a car in his factory.

That comes from Richard Wolf (an american)

I don't know. A private bank ?; a communist government ?

honestly, paying any attention to anyone that espouses the ltv as viable is just a waste of time as they are a waste of dna. that shit has been beaten to the ground and raped over and over that it's cum-filled corpse is starting to smell a bit off

The example above isn't wrong but incomplete, the surplus value is after the cost of materials and depreciation etc.
The person who paid for organisation, the machines, etc. is the worker.

The reason it isn't selling a service is because goods and services (under the theory at least) are priced in terms of their cost + profit, not their replacement cost only as labour is.

>Something I don't understand is, in Marxist ideology, it is claimed that profit is stolen labor (Labor Value Theory). I can't wrap my head around this. Is labor not a service sold by the worker?

They are wrong. Capital is created through labor. It would be theft of labor to steal capital from a capitalist who justly gained the capital. The real theft of capitalists is their theft of natural resources from their countrymen. Geonationalism is superior to socialism in every way.

>The person who paid for organisation, the machines, etc. is the worker.
I still don't understand this. Is this assuming the business is started in a communist or capitalist system? Would not the entrepreneur pay for these things in a capitalist system?

Yfw trump pence logo is literally hammer and scicle.

I'm not advocating one or the other, but
> risk
bankrupcy
> secure resources
bankrupcy
> pay for capital
bankrupcy
> pay loans
unless bankrupcy

I'm not saying it's stealing, that was OP.

Bankruptcy, losing everything you own, never having a credit line again, being homeless, etc. It sounds easy to say "bankruptcy" as the only potential risk but that's a lot more serious than face value.

I am OP btw. I'm just trying to understand the "Theft of Labor" in the Labor Value Theory.