Alright you are transported back in time when Karl Marx is about to write his book the communist manifesto but notices your presence and in the odd twist of events he asks you for help with some ideas and suggestions to put in his book. You can't kill him nor destroy the book but you have the chance to alter the meaning and the rest of the book before it is published.
What do you tell Karl Marx and what do you have him put in the book?
>Hard mode: No nazi extreme shit or memes.
Communism can only work for European peoples. Add that as a disclaimer.
Applies to very small applications only
I'd argue with him that it's going to be a long hard road to full communism, and tone down some of the triumphant tone
Make it a bit colder and sharp
Tell him to add more explicit support for patriarchies and ethno nationalism so that retards won't misinterpret and revise him. OP do you btw know that the maifesto is a propaganda book and kapital the philosophical one?
real communism can only be achieved after civilization is already almost fully automated and very advanced tech wise
>"Put in some dragons nigga"
>"Also dedicate a whole chapter to how you comb your beard, make it one big analogy for proletarian suffering or some shit lmao"
Shit my bad i always thought that karl marx wrote the communist manifesto. What was his actual book that started it all then?
Das Kapital
idiot
Kapital vol 1 is the big book that introduces most of his big ideas, even though it was written quite late in his life. The manifesto was written collaboratevly by marx and other communists as a propaganda booklet.
"I come from the future. Communism will only work if a non-taxed, non-intellectual-property free market takes precedence in the economy."
Also, tomorrow's my 19th birthday, what should I do after work to celebrate?
Probably also add at the end of this paragraph
marxists.org
>The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Or else barbarism and fall
Tell him to make ot extremely clear and important that the right to bear arms for all is important to insure that everyone is equal in unity and power and to tell him that any group that tries to rise up and control must not be allowed the power and must be deemed as a threat.
Oh and tell him to make chicken tendies the best communist supporter delicacy.
Explain why his economic ideas are wrong(primarily the labor theory of value), and why a society without hierarchy is impossible.
Because it worked so well in Europe, you moron. Hell, the most successful Marxist country today is China.
inb4 not real gommunism
NatSoc is the only path to colonising the stars.
All socialism is is worker ownership of the means of production. Why is this so bad? You should be able to keep the full product of the fruit of your labour (minus whats needed for police officers, military, firefighters, etc. as these are necessary communal services. Roads could be paid for when you renew your driver's license or plates). Right now with capitalism it's the owner, not the worker, who gets what you produce. In the form of profit. You just get a wage for what you produce.
In an ideal world you would have worker cooperatives where every worker was an equal shareholder and equal voter (so the profits and responsibility are shared equally). They would democratically elect a CEO, who then sets the pay scale for all the workers (so yes there would be inequality in socialism. Executives would get paid more than burger flippers. But you wouldn't have the gross inequality that we have now because the executives would be kept in check by democratic rule. And everyone would be an equal shareholder.)
Alternatively you could have state ownership of the corporations. The "Worker's Republic". And the state would set payscales. The state would be accountable to the people through democratic vote. If the state managed to produce a budget surplus, that surplus could be paid at as a dividend to the workers in said worker's republic. Instead of going to some rich kike.
>Or else barbarism and fall
The greater the delay, the greater the change as all that was human melts into air
>All socialism is is worker ownership of the means of production. Why is this so bad?
There's more than that, but let's go into it.
Because of a few reasons. For one, it has invariably involved seizing the means of production from their rightful owners. For another, 16 year old kids shouldn't own the means of production at the part time job they work at over the summer.
>You get to keep the full product of the fruit of your labor
You already do. Surplus value does not exist. When you work for an employer, you are selling your labor.
People are free to set up co-ops right now, in capitalist countries. They generally don't, because what you're suggesting is a shit way to run a business.
>Shareholders
There is no reason a laborer should be a shareholder just because he works there. Shareholders own part of the company because they BUY part of the company. Shareholders help to provide the capital necessary for the business to run.
>rightful owners
People who just sit and watch profits grow are the rightful owners now? Sounds a loy like aristocracy
>You already do. Surplus value does not exist. When you work for an employer, you are selling your labor.
Literally how do you think profits are made?
>Shareholders help to provide the capital necessary for the business to run.
Where do you think capital comes from? Moreover, what do you think capital and money -are-? Just as profits come from extracting the surplus value of labor, capital is merely a representation of the ability to buy labor.
Absolutely nothing. The Communist Manifesto is perfect.
What I would have told Marx though would have been him to have a more straightforward and consistent theory of crisis outside the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, to actually write his promised treatise on dialectics so that we wouldn't have had Marxists argue over "dialectics" without knowing what they're talking about, and to stop getting distracted by Russia and actually finish writing Capital and not die in the middle of writing it.
Offer him a job and see what excuse he makes
>For one, it has invariably involved seizing the means of production from their rightful owners. For another, 16 year old kids shouldn't own the means of production at the part time job they work at over the summer.
rightful owners? All land on earth started out as communal property. Why shouldn't 16 year old part timer workers over the summer own shares? Once they stop working there, they relinquish their shares and stop collecting dividends. They don't get to keep their share when they leave. They just get to keep the salary and dividends they collected over that summer. If you want to keep your stake in the company, you have to work. That's how it works.
>Surplus value does not exist
Yes it does. In the form of profit. In a socialist society, you can not have employees. Owners would have to work alongside the workers and wouldn't have any more power than any other worker. 1 worker, 1 share, 1 vote.
>People are free to set up co-ops right now, in capitalist countries. They generally don't, because what you're suggesting is a shit way to run a business.
People don't start up co-ops because they don't have the necessary capital to do so. And small businesses are at a tremendous competitive disadvantage. Because large corporations benefit from economies of scale. Amazon and Wal-Mart can afford to beat ma and pa shops on price.
He would probably accept. He didn't have a job because he wasn't able to get one, not because he didn't want one.
Wait, the capital never got finished? What happened?
Get rid of the whole prehistoric communism idea. Bad anthropology.
He got distracted by anthro research on russian peasants and left Engel's a lot of notes to put together after his death
Frame him for a crime so he is jailed for the rest of his life. Make sure his book is never published in large quantities and dies to obscurity.
Read Nick Land nigger
He got distracted (I think by Russian agriculture) and never went back to finishing Capital. Ended up having a shitton of unpublished manuscripts which were collected into Volumes 2 and 3 by Engels, Volume 4 by Kautsky, and the Grudrisse by the soviets after Marx . The degree in which Marx wanted to publish the manuscripts and whether Engels organization of them is accurate to what Marx intended is hotly contended.
That was Engels, not Marx. Marx just agreed with him. The part where the Manifesto asserts that primitive communities did not have class divisions was inserted later down the road by Engels.
Communism existed before Marx and would have existed even if Marx never rose to prominence.
>You can't kill him
I kill him anyway.
>people who use their labour-earned money to buy into other ventures are aristocrats and don't deserve it
"put food in it, karl"
He starved
It's not a book, it's a short pamphlet.
ITT: Memeflags
This thread is a shitmagnet
>What do you tell Karl Marx and what do you have him put in the book?
To stop telling Jewish lies and tell the truth about his desire for his Jewish ideology to rule over the goyim.
well since i can't kill him i'd simply get someone else to kill him for me and be done with the retard
...now for the rest of the thread
you're a moron, visit the eastern block
you're a coward disguised as a careful moron
you're a "never gonna give you up no matter the millions of deaths" moron
you're a "the solution to mass starvation that every commie was looking for is literally dicks" moron
you're "i mistake communism for a futuristic post-scarcity economy" moron
dragons would make it more realistic
you're a "I come from the future and still there are no schools that can teach me basic biology, sociology or economy because we're all morons" moron
you're a "I want to achieve revolution by equally arming those who i want to exterminate" moron like only 'murrica can produce
you're a "individual motivation is in no way biologically determined and the fuhrer can simply modify it towards exclusive social motivation" moron
you're a "i'm not capable of understanding why communism fails before it's achieved so it's marx's fault for not producing backup plans" moron
morons... fucking morons everywhere...
I'd make the fucker and his whole family work in the fields from sun up to sun down, and make sure he got the standard handful of food for the time.
Then after a year give him the opportunity to make more than twice his income working in the fields and only have to work 12 hours, in which his wife can stay home and look after and feed all his kids (in reality 4 of his kids died of neglect)
Then ask him to talk about the 'evils' of capitalism.
That's fair. OP said I can't kill him, so I figured removing the part that kills the most under communism (aside from the secret police) would at least make the 20th century less atrocious.
Write in huge letters in the beginning “READ WAGE LABOR AND CAPITAL, THIS SHIT IS OUTDATED”
>you're a "i'm not capable of understanding why communism fails before it's achieved so it's marx's fault for not producing backup plans" moron
Backup plans? For what? Marx was right. The problem is that I'm sick of rehashing the same debates over the course of decades because Marx wasn't straightforward enough.
Yes the tried and true excuse of 'but i cant find a job' is the calling cry of all commies
> "Jews shouldn't be allowed in the movement"
Communism would never exist, because about 90% of the revolutionaries and high ranking officers in the Soviet Union were bloody jews.
>People who just sit and watch profits grow are the rightful owners now? Sounds a loy like aristocracy
>Implying capitalist countries, particularly the USA, don't have by far the highest social mobility ever.
>Literally how do you think profits are made?
The economy isn't a zero sum game you moron. Different people value things differently. You don't make an economic transaction unless you value what you're getting as more than what you're giving. Besides, you seem to be under the impression that profit is the money made by the shareholders/CEO. It's not. Profit is money made by the COMPANY. It's used to expand the business. Things like how much money the CEO and shareholders make are part of the company's expenditure.
>Where do you think capital comes from?
Other businesses, owned by different people and employing different people.
>capital is merely a representation of the ability to buy labor.
Last I checked, you can't buy labor with tools and machinery, dipshit.
>muh surplus value
Dipshit. You don't have to work for an employer. It's not enforced by law. If what you're saying had any resemblance to reality, virtually everyone would work independently or in a co-op.
>All land on earth started out as communal property.
All land started off as unclaimed.
>Why shouldn't 16 year old part timer workers over the summer own shares?
Because 16 year olds don't know how to run a fucking McDonalds. It has nothing to do with dividends.
>Profit
Not obtained through surplus value. See above.
oh, i'm sorry, i must have misunderstood you
you're actually a "i'm the only one that understands how communism can be achieved and everyone else had it wrong because they had lesser reading skills" moron
quite common mistake but, then again, quite common category of moron
>implying rich cunts don't just raid those peoples superannuation whenever they feel like it
Marx didn't consider capitalism evil. Have you read the Communist Manifesto? He regards capitalism as revolutionary and progressive and pre-capitalist societies reactionary. In fact the history of 20th century communism was the history of Communists completing the bourgeois revolution because liberalism has proved itself inadequate to deal with imperialism perpetuating semi-feudal relations of production.
No it's not. I have never heard that excuse from any Communist. People in general have always struggled with employment because unemployment is endemic to the capitalist system.
Have you ever tried applying for a job before? Have you ever been laid off and had to get another job because the economy sucks? Jesus, the people who make the accusation of Marx being "lazy" always seem to be people who've never worked a day in their lives.
>All land started off as unclaimed.
And just people in the past laid claim to that land, they should be able to pass it down from generation to generation? We live in a system in which (((trust fund kids))) never have to work a day in their life.
>Because 16 year olds don't know how to run a fucking McDonalds. It has nothing to do with dividends.
Just because you own shares, doesn't mean you run the company. The shareholders appoint the CEO via a vote to run the company.
>Not obtained through surplus value. See above.
profit by definition is surplus value. You're making money off the labour of other people. Paying them a wage doesn't change that because if you are turning a profit after paying a wage to your workers, you are making money off your workers.
There actually are some high skill areas of the economy which are often more or less run as worker's co-ops. For example many doctors and software developers work on their own, which makes sense considering how unfavorable it is for a highly skilled individual to work for a capitalist. Often times you only get around 20 % of what you produce. The reason why this hasn't spread to low skilled jobs is probably that they're very hard to do alone or in small groups, and low skilled workers don't have the initial capital.
>you're actually a "i'm the only one that understands how communism can be achieved and everyone else had it wrong because they had lesser reading skills" moron
No, history moves independently of your own beliefs. The problem with historical communist movements hasn't been that their ideas were "wrong", but that their politics didn't represent the interests of the working class. The fundamental principle of Communism is the self-determination of the working class opposed to the interests of capital. Rather than driving this home, the bureaucracies that constituted the international communist movement took the side of nationalism rather than the international proletariat. Their ideas were "wrong" insofar as that "wrongness" was an expression of their shitty politics, not the other way around. The origin of shitty politics wasn't because they interpreted Marx wrong, it was a result of the fact they didn't represent the political interests of the working class.
>you're a "individual motivation is in no way biologically determined and the fuhrer can simply modify it towards exclusive social motivation" moron
Dude there is even more individual incentive to labour in socialism than in capitalism. In capitalism, you don't even get anywhere close to the full value of the fruit of your labour. You just get a wage and your boss keeps the rest (profit). You are a boot licking Romanian classcuck.
Instead of wanting Tyrone to fuck your wife, you want Adrian Mutu (Romanian Chad) CEO to fuck your wife.
>You don't make an economic transaction unless you value what you're getting as more than what you're giving.
You are an idiot. Do you really think that consumers are the ones who set prices? Do you really think that if everyone in the world thought that cars were worth $1, business would sell them at a dollar?
>It's used to expand the business.
Exactly. The only thing that the bosses do is take money and invest it into dead labor. They don’t do anything else. So then how do they make so much money compared to the actual workers? Because they take surplus labor for themselves. Not that hard to get.
>Dipshit. You don't have to work for an employer. It's not enforced by law
The bourgeoisie ... lets him have the appearance of acting from a free choice, of making a contract with free, unconstrained consent, as a responsible agent who has attained his majority. Fine freedom, where the proletarian has no other choice than that of either accepting the conditions which the bourgeoisie offers him, or of starving, of freezing to death, of sleeping naked among the beasts of the forests!
>self-determination of the working class
see, that's where you're wrong kiddo, self determination is contingent on biologically determined neuroarchitecture evolved over millions of years as to integrate within hierarchical structures
if you equalize everyone at the level of the working class, i.e. the lowest common denominator both in drive and intelligence then the smartest of them will instinctively form and situate themselves atop a new hierarchy as opposed to "representing the interests of the working class"
you still get a hierarchy but, after killing all smart people, just a very shitty and doomed to fail hierarchy
but still, pretend like you can actually override human biology at a planetary scale, if everyone is equal, who bothers with coming up with new and exciting things like technology and why?
>Imma Schizophrenic gypsy that's been calling everyone else morons
I don't know how it's like in Finland. Typically with tech start-ups, the earlier you enter the company, the more socialist it is. The later you enter the company, the more capitalist it becomes. The founder gets lots of shares and a modest guaranteed salary. And the early employees all get stakes in the company with modest guaranteed salaries. But then once the company becomes successful and big, they offer larger guaranteed salaries but little to no shares.
Doctors own their own businesses. They tend to employ secretaries. So a doctor's office isn't like a co-op. Doctors are petit bourgeoisie (small business owners). Doctors offer a valuable skill though so I don't mind them getting paid. It's the executives, bankers, insurance companies, etc. who are the parasites. You need years of education to become a doctor. You don't need years of education to become a CEO. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were all college drop-outs.
i wasn't talking about incentive to labour but rather incentive to create
the boss that gets the "rest" is the one that had the idea, that took the chance it will fail and that offered you the possibility to choose to not work for him if you have no wish to do so
without the boss that had the idea for, let's say, the shitty capitalistic device you're typing your retarded conclusions on, then the worker wouldn't be working on shitty communication devices but rather would be working in a shoe factory
if the boss didn't assume the risk, with his own money, that shitty devices like his might not be what the people want, which is a big risk, then the worker would be working, you guessed it, in a shoe factory
does schizophrenia mean something else when you read it upside down?
>traps are gay
Find someone else to do your high school paper your queer.
>Communism can only work for European peoples. Add that as a disclaimer.
Because Russia and Eastern europe were never communist countries and never formed a bloc called the Soviet Union
Communism is literally impossible to achieve, Marx had things so backwards that his solutions actually cause the problems he's trying to fix. Wealth in the hands of the many is done best through the free market, Wealth in the hands of the few, goes to the government through heavy taxation.
Communism can only come to pass in a post-scarcity society. Scarcity can never be eliminated, only shifted along to the next link in the production chain. If you boil down to the base elements, you are left with Energy, Space and Time. To enter a post-scarcity society, these three things need to be infinte, to sastisfy the limitless wants. There are countless reasons to why this is not possible.
>self determination is contingent on biologically determined neuroarchitecture evolved over millions of years as to integrate within hierarchical structures
My man, the root of our ancestry within the apes would be something close to a gibbon where the social group is a pair bond
I said nothing of hierarchy. What I'm referring to is the assertion of the interests of labor opposed to capital. Class society isn't the result of a mere hierarchical division of labor, but an expression of a more fundamental economic movement of which the existing class hierarchy is but an expression of. Capitalists are representations of capital, while the proletariat are representations of wage-labor. The abolition of class distinctions wouldn't make everyone a proletarian, a wage-laborer, it would abolish the wage-labor and capital relation.
You're also assuming that intellectual production is a consequence of exploitation - that the production of culture is dependent upon the capacities of the elite. To a certain extent this correct, at least in current society, what is incorrect is the basis of this intellectual production, which is the organization of economic relations and not on innate characteristics of humanity as a specie. Under capitalism, only a small portion of society is given the material access of higher education, and the majority of consumption occurs in the upper-income brackets. What does this mean? That instead of a universal enlightenment, you only have a universal philistinism, an "enlightenment" dependent on a cultural production subsumed by the market. The material origin of "intellectual" culture is the culture industry; upper-class culture is the culture of consumerism.
While it is true our internal essence is defined physically, that physical reality is objectified by a social organization that exists alienated from our own individual physiology. You cannot ignore the process of this objectification, of how our physical existence is socially constituted.
>the working class, i.e. the lowest common denominator both in drive and intelligence
The working class will be much more educated though. Compare the knowledge of an average working class person on about any topic today with one in the Middle Ages; I'm sure they wouldn't have thought it possible that 99% of the population would even have been able to learn to read and write. I don't see why the same thread of increasingly educated working class people wouldn't continue as the economy and society develop further.
>To enter a post-scarcity society, these three things need to be infinte, to sastisfy the limitless wants.
Or you could just have automation and energy rations
>There are countless reasons to why this is not possible.
I agree with every word in your post. I'm not an advocate for a single principle of Marxist ideology, just wanted to participate ITT.
>same thread
* trend
Change the ‚means of production‘ to means of reproduction‘.
nope looks good, send it out
>why are gibbons not the only species with which humans share neurological similarities
>why does depression manifests with both lack of drive and social withdrawal as simptoms
>how do antidepressants work
you go young grasshopper and find the answers to the above problems on literally any scientific journal on the internet and then tell me more about how communism is the utopia
everyone hates you, anal, because of your need to insert your worthless opinions and namefag in every venue. off yourself goblino.
>limitless wants
Are you aware a major reason everything is so "limitlessly" wanted is the fact that capitalism is continuously deliberately advertizing new and flashy products?
>projecting this hard
I do it exactly because you care, weak bitch. Pic related is you.
>he replied this to himself
>Automation
Robots that build shit don't spawn from nothing, you dolt.
>Scarcity can never be eliminated, only shifted along to the next link in the production chain.
The demand will be put upon those more and more of those robots to satisfy the unlimited desires, which of course then shifts onto the materials on which is required to build said robots, which is then shifted onto the labour required to collect said materials etc. all the way down to the base 3, Space, Time and Energy.
>Applies to very small applications only
Jamestown
fte.org
I rest my case
your wage is a profit
tangible property for your menial work
>What is growth
You do realise scarcity is the primary limiter of growth and the fact that life reproduces? Correct?
This is what is meant by limitless demand. I am unsurprised you fail to understand this concept, because this is precisesly why communits/socialist countries fail time and time again. The failure to account for the increase of demand placed upon the system via rapid unchecked growth.
Tell him how he and everyone who follows his ideology will be a walking meme that will ruin society.
gotcha bitch, go back to sucking zoom's dick
>I said nothing of hierarchy
correct
i did
>Capitalists are representations of capital, while the proletariat are representations of wage-labor
no
wage labor does not confine individuals to a proletariat class, being a capitalist doesn't mean you have capital above wage-level, having capital above wage-level doesn't confine individuals to this status either
>You're also assuming that intellectual production is a consequence of exploitation
no
intellectual production is a consequence of the drive for it, education is widely available on any topic via the internet, a capitalistic invention no less, so anyone with drive is able to access any topic of study with any device capable of searching google
>While it is true our internal essence is defined physically, that physical reality is objectified by a social organization that exists alienated from our own individual physiology
no
this is bullshit of the highest magnitude
what you may be trying to say, because it's not clear at all, is that individual identity is socially negotiated with other members of your social group, which is true
however this has no impact on physical existence, this is not social quantum mechanics, or rather the layman's interpretation of quantum mechanics because that's not how quantum mechanics works either
Tell him that to get the message across to the dumb proles so they'll actually listen, he needs to write it in story form. Everybody likes a good story, and the basic message of one is much easier to understand than some dry politico-economic theory, especially if you don't have a good education. Also tell him to aim this at young people. Get their hearts and minds when they are still forming and you will have them for life.
Suggest that the hero is an ordinary person who is held down by the privileged incompetents he sees all around him, and who struggles to prove himself by learning all he can about self empowerment. He slowly gains a following of fellow outsiders who desire to change the world by displaying almost miraculous powers of drive and willpower, promising them that one day they will inherit the freedom to do everything they dream of, instead of being crushed by a soulless bureaucracy only interested in maintaining the status quo.
Make the villian a slimy little shit who inherits his rich parents wealth in suspicious circumstances, and who's always whining about how unfair everything is, despite having plenty of money and an army of fawing sycophants.
Then suggest he calls the hero Tom Riddle, and the villian Harry Potter.
Stir up the people around him to pogrom him and his kike family out of Europe.
>implying every pirate meme flag isn't a boomer faggot
>nothing personnel
Give me a (you).
>What do you tell Karl Marx and what do you have him put in the book?
Tell him that Jewish agents would butcher his ideology and transform it into a neofeudal serfdom where Jewish Elites would plan to be the Oligarchs reigning over the Working class :^)
>however this has no impact on physical existence
How the food I have on my plate arrived on that plate is a consequence of the system of economy I exist in, so yes how we organize socially has a definite influence on your own physical existence.
> individual identity is socially negotiated with other members of your social group
Social roles exist independently of your own personal identification. You assume social roles dependent on your actions, which are themselves dependent upon a system of interaction. Even if you argue in terms of identity, the much more fundamental question is how these social groups are constituted given that those groups are what grant identity to begin with (and not the individual).
>intellectual production is a consequence of the drive for it
Look at the world physically - what is the material basis for our own culture? The idea that the production of culture is merely a consequence of a "drive" towards it ignores the economic basis of the material goods which facilitate culture. Regardless, the culture of capitalism is a disgusting consumerist culture that only encourages actual intellectual growth only insofar as this growth is profitable.
If you want to understand society, you have to understand it in social terms. Our physiology is objectified through our participation of society. Looking at our bodies and comparing them to the bodies of animals can be misleading if you don't contextualize our bodies within particular form of social organization. Social life originates from material life, but you cannot understand social life without understanding the process in which that social life emerges, how our physical existence is translated socially.
Guys, sage this fucking thread its legit /leftypol/! Here a screencap!
>You do realise scarcity is the primary limiter of growth and the fact that life reproduces? Correct?
>This is what is meant by limitless demand. I am unsurprised you fail to understand this concept, because this is precisesly why communits/socialist countries fail time and time again. The failure to account for the increase of demand placed upon the system via rapid unchecked growth.
You do realize that life reproduction can be predicted and controlled with a pretty good precision? The failure to do so accounts for the ongoing demise of most Neoliberal capitalist societies, while the Communist state that does so is immune to such problems and is poised to assume the dominant position globally, and especially in Australia?
>I'm afraid of discussion please let me stay in my echo chamber!!!!
leave the thread then faggot
wages =/= profit
You can't just invent definitions of profit at your whim.
If your employer pays you $14/hr to make products in his factory and he turns around and sells the products you made in that hour for $100 and the other expenses are say $20, then the total expenses would be $34 and the total revenue would be $100. The profit would then be $66. The employer is literally stealing $66 out of your pocket.
what's the matter snowflake? Do you need a safe space? I thought the right was all about muh freeze peach?
BTW, an insightful question in the screencap, I'd address it I guess.
>Wealth in the hands of the many is done best through the free market
Why is free market (lazies faire economic model) is non-existent globally, and all we have now is a mixed economy with varying degrees of planning and control, closely matching Lenin's Soviet New Economic Policy? Isn't it ironic that Free Market has lost the Free Market competition in the field of Economic systems entirely, yet Free Market fanatics like you seem to ignore it and repeat their idealistic mantras like "Wealth in the hands of the many is done best through the free market"?
>Communism can only come to pass in a post-scarcity society. Scarcity can never be eliminated, only shifted along to the next link in the production chain. If you boil down to the base elements, you are left with Energy, Space and Time. To enter a post-scarcity society, these three things need to be infinte, to sastisfy the limitless wants. There are countless reasons to why this is not possible.
Again, yet another Idealistic statement. We can never utilize a pure Capitalist (or pure anything) society just as well: Forced labour (slavery), Hired labour (capitalism), owned necessary labour (socialism), creative labour (communism) have always existed and always will exist. What matters is the dominant mode of production. Your arguement boils down to pedantry.
A communist post-scarsity society would look like that:
Dominantly Communist
Socialism for innovative scares fields.
Capitalism for asocial elements with degraded Social Credit Scores.
Slavery for criminal elements.
Communism has never worked and never will. Capitalism being flawed is not an argument for capitalism. Anyone who supports communism supports barbarism, pseudo-science, primitivism, and decline. Capitalism has a proven track record of lifting man kind out of barbarism and primitivism. Capitalism is the thing that will get us to what communists have always tried to achieve and have always failed to achieve because they are subhuman retards. How ironic, capitalism will be the system that creates full automation, will make jobs obsolete, and create a post scarcity society. Communism can only create dysgenics, bread lines, and death. You are a dumb faggot and I hope that one day you hang yourself.
Capitalism being flawed is not an argument for communism***
Is what I meant to say
Your post is not an argument for anything, just angry shouting at your monitor is what you meant to say.
Real Marxists oppose SJWs:
youtube.com
No marxist denies that capitalism has improved living conditions, that it is arguably the best system so far or that it is a necessary economic stage. Read Marx before criticizing him.
>capitalism will be the system that creates full automation
Which leads to unemployment, which is a major problem under capitalism
>and create a post scarcity society
[Citation needed]
>incoherent screeching and strawmanning
ok