R*Ch “““““people””””” should be taxed at 100% and have their wealth seized if they try to flee

>I hear you've been talking shit about Socialism like I wouldn't find out.

Attached: 1549036140599.png (472x555, 482K)

>imagine not being able to achieve the bare minimum required to live a decent life in this baby diaper of a society and sperging out over an economic ideology that so far only works on paper

Attached: 1542162780035.png (367x358, 202K)

Its how it work sorry Pablo

Attached: IMG_8744.jpg (488x609, 66K)

t. reddit

Why is she incapable of not looking insane?

What's with all the boomer-tier memes about this chick?

le upvoted

Most conservatard memes revolve around unflattering pictures of political opponents captioned with terrible “jokes”.

Anyone "deserves" anything

Attached: 1549548869694s.jpg (100x125, 3K)

100% is too much, 50% should be enough

Daily reminder that if you are from a first world country, over the age of 25 and still poor it is your own fualt

t. one the best countries in the world in life quality rankings that is also socialist

poor """"""people"""""" should be exterminated and their property given to the upper middle class.

You can only reply to this post if you get neetbux or if you make less than 20k a year

I make exactly 0 euros a year

Daily reminder that The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.

A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.

Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity. It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the various uses of things is the work of history. So also is the establishment of socially-recognized standards of measure for the quantities of these useful objects. The diversity of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention.

The utility of a thing makes it a use value. But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.

Kys commie

Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.

Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort,[6] a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms.[7] Let us consider the matter a little more closely.

A given commodity, e.g., a quarter of wheat is exchanged for x blacking, y silk, or z gold, &c. – in short, for other commodities in the most different proportions. Instead of one exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great many. But since x blacking, y silk, or z gold &c., each represents the exchange value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, z gold, &c., must, as exchange values, be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other. Therefore, first: the valid exchange values of a given commodity express something equal; secondly, exchange value, generally, is only the mode of expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it.

Let us take two commodities, corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third.

A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.

This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value. Then one use value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity.

“one sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value ... An hundred pounds’ worth of lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold.”

This

As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.

If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.

Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.

We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use value. But if we abstract from their use value, there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form.

A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.

Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary.

Cringe and bluepilled
Based and REDpilled

Attached: image.jpg (439x306, 31K)

Absolutely based

Attached: 6C2W1azD1rBs8hvNgYx1DbdnfdDphXeZ4o7B2vKSPDa44YVFrLTfFpS (1) - Copy - Copy.png (640x594, 183K)

based

Based. r*Chies are all pedophiles

Ummm this is a pro-Gentile thread, watch it

Attached: in-1967-polish-mercenary-rafal-ganowicz-was-asked-what-it-6855419.png (500x503, 137K)

You’re not rich.

based, fuck the rich

this is actually the final redpill. doesn't matter if you're black, white or yellow. FUCK rich people

Congress are all rich now tell me how you would do this.

>tfw kinda rich but still agree with this
Ultra rich people are evil and their wealth should be seized

dismantle democracy

Attached: 13290398410.jpg (826x960, 65K)

Based upper middle classman

>no mommy i dont want to work for my money i want to kill every faggot that has the things i want!!

Attached: 1549218421163.png (658x662, 112K)

Most rich people are self made. Also by virtue of you being in the West, you are rich. Enjoy having your wealth seized for pajeets and Africans.

>F*male "citizens" should be raped at 100% and have their kids seized if they try to flee

Attached: UDRh.gif (500x213, 499K)

Seething

>Puerto Rico

So that's where pipeweed comes from

>be rich
>get 100% of your income taxed
>quit your business because you are literally not making money from it
>don't make anymore income
>100% of $0.00 is 0 dollars and zero cents
holt fuck you are really smart OP

w-what's the cutoff for being considered r*ch?

Attached: 1504643493521.png (604x613, 257K)

If you have to ask, you're fucked.

Rich people earned their wealth. Stop being a lazy nigger and get a high paying career.

Christ I should have never accepted full time at Burger King

Attached: 5f0.jpg (423x566, 30K)

>Rich people earned their wealth. Stop being a lazy nigger and get a high paying career.

Attached: 97CE6995-3E36-4D67-956E-BD5596B414ED.jpg (326x294, 18K)

during the communist revolution my family were considered wealthy opressors for having more cows than most people in the village

>allowing them to live

Attached: d90.png (644x800, 15K)

false, most rich people are jobless and inherited.

Yikes

LOL, NEET incel spotted

Attached: millionaires.png (834x2417, 468K)

communists should be hanged

Jesus. those are depressing odds

t. countries with immigrants less than 5% of total population

wait til you reach 30%-40% and see your entire social structure crumble, it may not happen in your lifetime but I can assure you that the white successful people won't want to give Badir any money.

just kill yourself already

if you actually went out your basement and talked with wealthy people you would know.

And you are already the 1% of the world, if you live in finland and is ok off

just kill yourself already

i'm a self-made millionaire bruh

Do you want the rich 100% taxed in Iceland?

Attached: 1533980019188.jpg (747x720, 108K)

great for you then, you'll make your kids inherit and give them some stores to manage, proving my point even more..

is this michael heinrich?

>*pig noises*
What does it mean?

No, it's this German guy called Karl Marx

Attached: 1543014660004.jpg (252x346, 20K)

then i suppose that heinrich firmly held to the source wording. at least for the explanation of the commodity form.

Attached: 61nmmCVHPLL.jpg (700x1050, 78K)

Touché, comrade, touché